Search remote jobs (Remote OK, We Work Remotely, Jobicy)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well past them by disclosing metered pricing ($0.001 per job billed to the caller's Apify account), a per-call cost cap (maxCostUsd default $0.25), server-side defaults (maxTotalJobs=25), dedupe with source attribution, and the upstream Actor being run. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending the user's money.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns and where it comes from, then filtering, then cost and defaults - a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense but every sentence carries information, though the trailing Actor URL is close to boilerplate for an agent choosing a tool.

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 an 18-parameter, zero-required aggregator with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: result shape (deduplicated list with source labeled), primary filters, cost model, and defaults, while deep per-parameter detail is fully carried by the schema. The only mild gap is not describing the returned record fields (e.g. alsoListedOn, descriptionText), which the schema only partially implies.

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 is 3, and the description adds real value by surfacing the high-signal filters (keywords, excludeKeywords, locations, requireSalary, minSalaryUsd, postedWithinDays, includeDescription) and clarifying the cost-cap semantics of maxCostUsd. It also resolves an internal schema ambiguity by stating the server default of maxTotalJobs=25 where the schema text says 'Default 8'. It does not explain the board-specific filters (wwrCategories, jobicyGeo, jobicyIndustry, stateStoreName), but those are documented in-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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('deduplicated list of remote job postings') and enumerates the exact sources (Remote OK, We Work Remotely, Jobicy), which functionally separates it from the ATS-specific siblings like greenhouse_jobs and lever_jobs. The sourcing also tells the agent the results come from public aggregator feeds rather than a single employer's board.

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 context is implied by the filter list and the cost note, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no naming of the ATS siblings as the alternative for company-specific searches. Hints such as turning on includeDescription 'for full descriptions' and onlyNewJobs for scheduled runs exist, but most of that guidance lives in the schema rather than the description.

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