jobs_phenom_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states there is no auth, cookie, or session required; that the data is credential-free public; and that limit is a best-effort hint that some tenants ignore, and that count reflects what actually came back. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention any rate limits or response format, but the detailed transparency about the page size quirk is strong for a scraper-type tool.

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 dense and front-loaded with the primary action, then explains the mechanism and key caveats. The parenthetical explanation about how Phenom serves data is useful but slightly long; however it earns its place because it clarifies the data-source oddity and credential-free access. The final sentence about limit/count is also important behavioral nuance. Efficiency is high overall.

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, a required one, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: the nature of the data source, no-auth, pagination behavior, and the domain parameter meaning. It does not explicitly describe what the returned job objects contain, but with no output schema present a small note about return shape could have added completeness. The key operational details are included though.

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 schema already documents each parameter including defaults and limits. The description adds nuance that limit is a best-effort hint that some tenants ignore and clarifies domain as the tenant's careers domain. Since the schema already covers the parameters, a 3 is the appropriate baseline and the description adds marginal more value.

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 the tool searches a Phenom People tenant's job board, identifies the specific resource (public Phenom career sites) and notes that the data is credential-free public data. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jobs_phenom_job, jobs_ashby_board, and jobs_gem_board by naming the specific Phenom platform and the domain input.

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 explains the mechanism (server-rendered HTML, no auth) and the meaning of domain, plus pagination nuances, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus jobs_phenom_job or other board tools. The sibling list is large with similar board tools, so the description could have stated how to choose between board search and individual job retrieval (e.g., 'use jobs_phenom_job for job details after a board search').

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