Find remote jobs from company career sites and remote-job feeds

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real operational context beyond them: it runs a specific Apify Actor on the caller's own account, charges roughly $0.002 per job, and caps spend at $0.5 per call. What it does not disclose is result latency or behavior when the cap truncates results.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with sources and scope before the normalization and cost details. Every sentence carries information, though the field list ('title, company, country, seniority, salary and skills') borders on redundant given the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it correctly focuses on source coverage, remote filtering, normalization and cost. The remaining gap is coverage limits (e.g., which countries or boards are weakly represented), which matters for an open-world scraper.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including country, title filter, salary floor and recency. The description only adds the framing that filtering preserves postings marked remote and that cost scales with result count, matching the max_items note in the schema rather than extending 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 ('remote jobs straight from employers') and enumerates the exact sources (company boards plus Remote OK, Jobicy, Working Nomads, Himalayas), which differentiates it from the sibling job searchers like search_tech_jobs and search_indeed_jobs by the remote-only filter. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than routed.

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 implied by 'keeping only roles the posting marks as remote', which tells an agent this is for remote-only searches. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_company_jobs or search_indeed_jobs, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the cost note.

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