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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that the data is a snapshot of a tracked corpus, not the whole market, and that salary averages cover only a minority of rows with published ranges. This is valuable caveat disclosure beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences: what it is, when to use it, and key limitations. Every sentence earns its place, the core definition is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 optional-parameter aggregate tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the data dimensions and gives critical caveats. Slight gap: it doesn't explicitly state that omitting roleFamily returns the full aggregate, though 'Restrict' in the schema implies this.

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% and the roleFamily parameter already has a clear description ('Restrict the aggregate to one discipline'). The tool description reinforces the meaning by discussing disciplines and the sizing use case, but does not add substantive detail beyond the 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?

The description clearly states this is an aggregate view of the remote tech job market, listing exact dimensions: open counts by discipline, top hiring companies, US residency demand, and salary data. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_remote_jobs by positioning itself as a pre-search sizing tool, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly says when to use it: for 'what is the remote market like for X' or to size a discipline before searching. It implies the alternative is the sibling search tool but does not name it explicitly or state a hard when-not-to-use condition.

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