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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying case-insensitive matching, the fields returned, and that salaries are in USD. This extra context is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose and matching scope. Second adds context (tech-heavy, keyless). Third lists return fields and currency note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing return fields (id, position, company, etc.) and noting salary currency. It lacks pagination or error info, but for a simple keyword search tool with clear annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description enhances meaning for 'query' by explaining it matches against position, company, or tags (case-insensitive), which adds detail beyond the schema's description. The 'limit' parameter default is in schema, but no extra info in description.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Keyword-search current RemoteOK remote-job listings'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_jobs (which likely returns all) and get_job (which gets by ID), as it focuses on keyword matching against position, company, or tags.

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?

Provides clear context for usage: 'Tech-heavy board; keyless' implies no authentication needed and the domain. It does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives like list_jobs or get_job, but the keyword search scope is well-defined.

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