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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses cost model (per-token billing, ~$0.00005 typical, ~$0.0004 cap, still billed if a timed-out run reached the provider), latency, the two-stage pipeline, the never-errors degraded contract with its specific reason values, and the job-first skip semantics. Annotations only say readOnly=false/openWorld=true/non-idempotent; the description supplies the substantive risk and billing context.

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?

Front-loads the money warning and the cheaper alternative, then structures the mechanics as (1)/(2). Dense but nearly every clause carries operational detail; it is long, and a few parentheticals could tighten, but there is little filler.

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 no-output-schema, paid, multi-stage tool it covers return shape (candidates ranked by probability with lexicalRank, `smart` winner/confidence/runId/cost), failure/degradation paths, and billing surface. An agent has everything needed to call it, interpret results, and handle failure.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies `useCase` semantics (the job intent that Jev judges against) and implies `maxPriceMicros` via the priceHint/price-filter note, but never defines `query` vs `useCase`, `candidateLimit`, or the other filter fields. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a precise verb+resource+scope: a paid, two-stage semantic search of the data API catalog that judges a lexical shortlist against a use case. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `discover` (free, lexical) and names the condition that separates them, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('only reach for this when a lexical search cannot express the job'), the required first step ('use `discover` (free, instant) first'), and a concrete worked example. It also covers when the tool self-skips (single clear job) and what to do after (follow up with inspect/run).

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