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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond this – no mention of the required tenant/domain, pagination behavior (limit/offset), rate limits, or whether the board is scoped to one tenant. With a lower bar due to annotations, this still adds essentially no behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There's nothing to trim, yet the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 7-parameter job-search tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the agent gets no explanation of the search/filter parameters or how this relates to jobs_phenom_job. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. Only the phrase "for a tenant" loosely hints that the required `domain` is a tenant identifier; sort, limit, offset, category, keywords, and location are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific source ("Phenom People") and resource ("job-search listing"), which does distinguish it from non-Phenom siblings at a coarse level. However, it doesn't clearly separate this board-level listing from the sibling jobs_phenom_job (single-job detail), and "for a tenant" is vague about what a tenant means in practice. Purpose is conveyed but not sharpened against close alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus jobs_phenom_job or the many other ATS board tools (greenhouse, workday, oracle, icims). No conditions, no exclusions, no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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