datasets_housing_markets_facets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns terms aggregation counts', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any required permissions. There is no mention of pagination, rate limits, or response structure, which is insufficient for a tool with 22 parameters.

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 only two sentences plus enumerations, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence is informative—first sentence states the action and resource, second clarifies the return type. No filler or redundancy.

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 22 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return format beyond 'terms aggregation counts'. It lists facet and filter enums, which is helpful, but does not describe how filters affect aggregation or what the output structure looks like. This is minimally adequate for a facet tool but lacks depth.

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 adds enum values for 'facet', 'region_type', and 'property_type' which partially overlap with schema descriptions. It does not add significant new meaning beyond listing available options.

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 verb 'Facet' and resource 'US housing markets dataset', specifying it returns 'terms aggregation counts'. It enumerates the facet fields and provides enum values for region_type and property_type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like datasets_housing_markets_search and datasets_housing_markets_item.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose (aggregation counts), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search or item tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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