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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses truncation of descriptions to 300 characters, that the programming feed omits job type, that the 'other' feed currently returns zero rows but incurs no charge, that only one fetch happens per run, and that auth/billing flow through the caller's OpenAny gateway credentials. It doesn't cover pagination or what an empty result looks like, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Return payload is front-loaded in the first sentence, then parameter behavior, then the operational caveats, with no filler. The two trailing sentences on the blocked feed and gateway billing are short and each carries distinct information.

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-parameter, nested-body tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it documents the return shape, the one-fetch-per-run limitation, the blocked category, and the billing model. The only flaw is the mismatch between the advertised 'other' category and the schema enum, which could cause an agent to attempt an invalid value.

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% so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the field list: keyword matches title OR company (not description), limit is capped at 100, and the feed taxonomy is explained well enough to pick a category. Minor inconsistency: it lists 'other' as a selectable category while the schema enum does not include it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('newest jobs in one We Work Remotely category feed') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (title, company, page, region, category, job type, publication time, 300-char description). Naming the source site distinguishes it from the sibling treg_post_call_crawl4ai_remoteok_search_jobs without needing the schema.

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?

Explains how to steer the call ('category' picks the feed, 'keyword' filters on title/company, 'limit' caps rows, 'one fetch per run'), and warns that the 'other' feed is unusable today. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over other job-board siblings such as remoteok_search_jobs, so the agent must infer the choice from the site name alone.

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