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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing data provenance (Jobicy) and the attribution rule (credit and apply link preserved), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how secondlife.it sourcing affects coverage.

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 short sentences with the scope and filter capability front-loaded. The parenthetical about credit and redistribution is slightly tangential but earns its place by explaining why only one source is used.

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?

For a simple read-only search with three fully documented, optional parameters, the description covers scope, source, and how to narrow results. Return shape is not described, but with no output schema the only real omission is pagination/ordering behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, including enum-style skill areas, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's 'filter by text or skill area' echoes q and skills but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or interaction detail (e.g., whether filters combine), and says nothing about limit.

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 resource and scope: remote jobs workable from Italy, sourced from Jobicy, with text and skill-area filtering. An agent immediately knows what is returned. No sibling tool overlaps this resource, so further differentiation isn't required, but the verb itself ('search') is only implied by the name.

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?

'Filter by text or skill area' implies how to narrow results but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings like get_place or search_incentives. The licensing note hints at a source restriction but doesn't frame it as a usage condition for the agent.

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