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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does outstanding work: it warns the data is 'sightings refreshed every ~3h, not verified live inventory,' explains the usLocationRequired flag, notes salary appears 'only where the employer published it,' and requires relaying the attribution field and using applyUrl unchanged. This is exemplary disclosure.

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?

The description is longer than average, but nearly every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, data-freshness caveat, salary caveat, and attribution instructions. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and the ATTRIBUTION section is clearly separated. It could be tightened slightly, but no content is wasted.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all key operational concerns: what kind of inventory it returns, freshness, salary visibility, US-only filtering, source restrictions, and attribution handling. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that minSalary applies to the top of the published range and excludes unpublished salaries, and by explaining that excludeUsOnly drops postings flagged by usLocationRequired. This pushes it above baseline, though not maximally because the schema itself is already descriptive.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('currently-open REMOTE tech jobs'), and its aggregation sources (Greenhouse, Ashby, Lever, Workday, iCIMS, remote feeds). It clearly differentiates this from a generic job search by emphasizing the remote and aggregate-board scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when someone asks what remote roles are open in a discipline, at a company, or above a salary.' It provides contextual guidance but does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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