Jev Decide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context the annotations can't: the host model retains final authority, and output should not be mechanically followed. It omits latency/cost/determinism of the external call.

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 dense sentences with zero waste: the usage condition and the authority caveat are front-loaded, and the exclusion ('open-ended coding/prose') closes the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only advisory tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation conditions, boundaries, and authority semantics well. It does not describe the shape of the response or what the model override does, which leaves a small gap given no output schema exists to carry that.

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 75%, so the schema already documents model, state, and question. The description's '2-255 explicit alternatives' maps meaning onto the options array and its bounds, but adds nothing for state or question beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific capability: producing an independent second opinion on a bounded decision with 2-255 explicit alternatives. It does not name its sibling tools (jev_gate, jev_route, jev_risk_score), so differentiation relies on the 'bounded decision' framing rather than explicit routing.

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?

Strong when-to-use ('only after inspecting enough context when a bounded decision has 2-255 explicit alternatives and genuine uncertainty remains') and when-not-to-use ('do not... use it for open-ended coding/prose'). It doesn't explicitly reference the sibling tools as alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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