Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), that failed calls are not charged, and that the feed carries no salary field. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before deciding to call a paid, open-world scraper.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste: source and fields first, then the absence of salary and the pricing/charging terms. Every clause is actionable information for the caller.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to cover what structured fields cannot: source provenance, the missing salary field, and the paid-call terms. All three are covered, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single `limit` parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('How many jobs, 1 to 50, default 10'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: newest remote programming jobs from We Work Remotely's programming-category RSS feed, plus the exact fields returned (title, company, region, category, link, publish time). The source and category scope make it distinguishable in practice, but it never explicitly names the sibling jobs_weworkremotely or explains how it differs from it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Newest remote programming jobs' — an agent can infer this is for remote programming listings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not language and no reference to sibling job-board tools as alternatives, so selection still requires inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.