datasets_jobs_facets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'live hiring-market snapshot' but does not disclose data freshness, scope, or any edge cases. For a read-only aggregation tool, minimal additional behavior is needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, listing key aggregations. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately hints at the output shape by listing the types of breakdowns. It is sufficient for an aggregation tool with one parameter.

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% (the single parameter 'size' is described in schema). The description does not add extra parameter details, but the baseline is 3 as per guidelines.

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 facets the jobs dataset and lists specific aggregations (top companies, ATS provider, department, location, employment type, remote share). It distinguishes from sibling tools like datasets_jobs_search and datasets_jobs_item by focusing on aggregates.

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 implies usage for aggregations over all open postings, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It is clear enough to differentiate from searching tools.

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