Job market overview

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered largest-first, and the output values are slugs interoperable with it_search_jobs. It does not mention snapshot timing or whether counts reflect a cached index, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero padding: purpose and dimensions first, then use cases, then ordering and interop. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a single optional enum parameter with no output schema, the description covers what is counted, how results are ordered, and how outputs feed a sibling tool. Only marginal gaps remain, such as what time window 'open jobs' reflects.

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% and the enum is self-documenting, but the schema description itself is only 'Grouping.' The description compensates by expanding the enum into readable business dimensions (e.g. 'hiring company', 'employment type'), which is the extra meaning an agent needs to pick the right 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Count IranTalent's open jobs') plus the exact aggregation axes (category, industry, seniority, employment type, location, hiring company). That clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like it_search_jobs, it_job, and it_salary, which return records rather than aggregate counts.

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?

It supplies concrete use-case triggers ('which fields hire most', 'who is hiring') that tell the agent what question shape this tool answers. It also notes that returned slugs are consumable by it_search_jobs, establishing a workflow link. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an explicit alternative for record-level queries.

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