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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real additional load: it discloses that Phenom serves server-rendered HTML with inline job data rather than a JSON API, that no auth/cookie/session is required, and that limit is a best-effort hint some tenants ignore so count reflects actual returns. This is substantive behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is one dense sentence riddled with nested parentheticals that make the pagination and auth details harder to parse than necessary. Every fact is useful, but the structure could be cleaner.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: data format, credential-free access, pagination semantics, and the single-job sibling route. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter notes (sort values, limit hint) largely restate what the schema already documents rather than adding syntax or format beyond it, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Searches a company's public Phenom People career site') and gives concrete domain examples (careers.whataburger.com). It explicitly distinguishes itself from its direct sibling by naming jobs_phenom_job for single-job retrieval, so an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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?

Routes the agent to jobs_phenom_job for single-job lookup and clarifies that 'domain' is the tenant's careers domain. It gives clear context for use but offers no explicit when-not guidance relative to the many other *_board sibling tools, leaving the ATS-selection decision to inference.

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