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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of 'global remote positions only' and lists returned fields, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or rate limits. Given the comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate additional context.

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?

The description consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and filters, the second outlines output fields and scope. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (confirmed by context signals), the description appropriately lists key returned fields without needing to detail return structure. It fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, filters, output summary, and source constraints (remote-only, Remotive). The limit parameter implies pagination, and the description is self-contained for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions filtering by keywords and category with example slugs, adding slight value beyond the schema. However, it does not provide deeper semantic meaning or usage tips beyond what is already in the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool searches curated remote-only job listings from Remotive, with filtering by keywords and category. It lists the fields returned (title, company, salary, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes it from other job search tools by specifying 'global remote positions only'. This provides high purpose clarity and differentiates it from siblings like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.reed.search.

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?

The description implicitly indicates usage for remote job searches via keywords and categories. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the phrase 'curated remote-only job listings' combined with 'Global remote positions only (Remotive)' gives clear context that this tool is for remote positions from a specific source. The lack of explicit exclusion or alternative guidance prevents a 5.

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