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 and the bar is lower. The description adds the returned scope (description, category, apply URL) and the input-sourcing dependency, but says nothing about caching, freshness, or rate limits.

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 zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the parameter-sourcing constraints follow compactly.

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?

Only two required params, both documented, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. The description fully supplies the cross-tool dependency an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a genuinely useful coupling not in the schema: the domain must be the *same* careers domain used for the board lookup, which clarifies how the two calls relate.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus a precise resource (one Phenom job) and names the exact fields returned (full description, category, apply URL). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling jobs_phenom_board, which lists jobs rather than retrieving a single one.

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?

States the prerequisite workflow explicitly: the id must come from jobs_phenom_board and the domain must be the same careers domain, which tells the agent the correct ordering and data source. It does not, however, state any when-not-to-use condition or alternatives beyond the board tool.

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