search_remote_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the listings are curated and that the tool returns ready-to-apply links, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention how filters combine (AND semantics), whether results are ordered, or any limitations beyond what the schema already covers. It stops short of hiding anything, but also doesn't provide rich behavioral detail like pagination or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search'). Every clause adds distinct value: the source ('curated by Remote Jobs Center'), the filter list, and the output type ('ready-to-apply links'). No filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with 6 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how to filter, and what it returns. It does not explain filter combination semantics or include notes on ordering, but given the schema richness, this is sufficient. The absence of annotations is partially offset by the read-only nature implied by 'Search'. It falls just short of 5 because it could explicitly state that multiple filters can be combined.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by categorizing several parameters as 'filters' (query, category, region, perk, company), which is not explicitly stated in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of 'limit' or the exact syntax of the filters beyond what the schema already provides. It meets, but does not exceed, the baseline.

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 tool searches remote job listings, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('current remote / work-from-home job listings curated by Remote Jobs Center'). It identifies key filter dimensions (query, category, region, perk, company) and the output (ready-to-apply links), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_categories, get_job, or list_companies.

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 strongly implies when to use this tool: when needing to search/filter jobs by various criteria. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with sibling tools (list_categories, get_job, list_collections, list_companies) is clear from the purpose. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance drops it from a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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