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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: the 50-document cap, sorted output order, $0.001 per-call cost, no-account requirement, and a sample endpoint to trial. It stops short of stating rate limits or failure behavior, hence not 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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then pricing and access notes. Efficient, though the 'Powered by Jev (TypeSafe System One)' branding is filler that does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds cost, limits, and access constraints, leaving little an agent needs beyond what is already supplied.

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 both required parameters are self-documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the 50-document limit and mentions 2000-char truncation only in the schema, adding no meaning beyond structured fields.

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 specific verb (rank) and resource (documents) with scope ('up to 50 documents by relevance to a query') and the return shape ('relevance probability, sorted highest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search, summarize, or verify.

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?

Usage is implied by the ranking/relevance framing but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling (e.g. search, verify) is named as a contrast. The cost and 'no account needed' notes help the agent decide feasibility but not selection.

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