remoty.work Remote Jobs

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds useful domain logic: it returns a count and newest jobs, and it applies the rule that most remote listings are limited to one country, which is the core behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

It is two tight sentences with no wasted language, and the key output shape (count plus newest jobs) is front-loaded before the country-eligibility rationale.

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 two-parameter read-only query, the description covers the core return semantics (count and newest jobs) despite no output schema. It is nearly complete, though it omits explicit sibling-tool routing and detailed return shape.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces country eligibility and 'newest' ordering, but adds no extra syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific resource and operation: counting live remote jobs a person in a given country can take, plus returning the newest ones. It distinguishes itself functionally from a generic remote-job search by emphasizing country eligibility, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling search_remote_jobs.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus search_remote_jobs. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing instructions.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive search. The description adds useful behavioral context: the listings are live and the country parameter filters for legal eligibility rather than merely matching location 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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core search action front-loaded and the country-filtering rule immediately following. No wasted words or tangential explanation.

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 three-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. The essential behavior and country filtering are both covered.

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%, and the schema already explains query, limit, and country semantics with examples. The description reinforces country filtering but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: search live remote job listings by role, skill or company. It clearly distinguishes the main search behavior, though it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool remote_jobs_open_to_country or explain when to prefer one over the other.

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?

It gives clear usage context by telling the caller to pass the job seeker's country to get only legally available jobs. It lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparison to the sibling tool, so the guidance is helpful but not fully complete.

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