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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'find' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, country-specific behavior, or any limitations. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 is a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose effectively. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but the structure itself is clean and efficient.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like, how the country parameter affects results, or how the tool relates to sibling search tools. The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 33%, with only 'query' having a description. The description adds context for the query (role or skill) but provides no insight into 'country' or 'results_per_page', leaving their purpose ambiguous. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb 'find' and a clear resource 'remote-only positions', and further specifies the target is 'for a role or skill'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on remote-only positions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with job_search or others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like job_search or company_jobs. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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