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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it discloses the 300-character description truncation, notes that data is a live snapshot from a public API, and states that credentials/charges/authorization come from the caller's gateway. It stops short of stating rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no jobs match, and overlaps somewhat with the schema's own 'Usage limits' text.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the resource and returned fields come first, filter semantics second, then source/provenance and billing. Every sentence is informational, and the only mild redundancy is restating 'Source: Remote OK' after the opening clause already establishes it.

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 single wrapping 'body' parameter with three sub-fields and no output schema, the description covers return shape, filtering behavior, truncation, and cost/authorization context. The remaining gaps are minor: no explicit pagination story beyond 'limit' and no freshness cadence beyond 'right now'.

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% but the schema's own field descriptions are nearly empty ('default ', 'default 25'), so the description adds real meaning: 'tag' is an exact tag match with examples, 'keyword' matches title/company/tags, and 'limit' caps returned rows. It does not restate that limit defaults to 25, which is the one semantic left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('the remote jobs listed on Remote OK right now, from its public API') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling treg_post_call_crawl4ai_weworkremotely_search_jobs by repeatedly anchoring on 'Remote OK', but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for finding live Remote OK listings, and the filter semantics ('tag' keeps, 'keyword' keeps) hint at narrowing behavior. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of the We Work Remotely sibling or other job tools, and no prerequisite/authentication guidance beyond a vague gateway note.

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