Search US tech jobs on Dice

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely non-inferable operational facts: it runs the tacps126/dice-jobs-scraper Actor on the caller's own Apify account, costs ~$0.00055 per job, and hard-caps spend at $0.5 per call. The account dependency and the cost ceiling are exactly the behavioral details an agent must know before invoking a paid, open-world scrape.

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 front-loaded sentences: resource scope first, operational/cost facts second, with no filler. The long enumeration of returned fields (salary text, employer type, Easy Apply, remote/on-site/hybrid, posted/updated dates) is partially redundant given the tool has an output schema, which is the only wasted weight.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description only needs to add source, cost, and account context — all present. Minor gaps remain: no guidance on extra_input (the one advanced parameter) and no note on whether results are deduplicated or how paging behaves at the 300-item ceiling.

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 schema already documents query, remote, location, max_items (including the cost-scaling note) and extra_input. The description reinforces 'keyword and city' for query/location and hints at result fields, but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a precise resource and scope: 'US tech jobs from Dice by keyword and city', which pins both the source (Dice vs. Indeed/Naukri) and geography (US vs. Naukri's India) without the agent needing to open the schema. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'by keyword and city' implies the intended search shape, and 'from Dice' implicitly routes against search_indeed_jobs / search_naukri_jobs / find_remote_jobs. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion ('not for non-US roles'), and no mention of when the sibling job tools are the better choice.

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