Jev Route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. It adds one meaningful behavioral constraint — "Never changes the user-selected host model" — which clarifies the tool is advisory only. It says nothing about the shape of the result or latency, so the added context is modest.

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; the usage condition and the candidate scope are front-loaded. No filler or redundancy, though the second sentence about the host model is somewhat tangential to selection.

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 4-parameter, 3-required tool with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented, the description covers the decision context but not the return value or what "second opinion" output looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: state, objective, and candidates are documented in the schema, but the model parameter has no description in either place. The description text adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 function — producing a routing "second opinion" over a fixed candidate set (tools, subsystems, workstreams, handling paths) — which is concrete enough to distinguish it from a scoring or gating tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with its siblings (jev_gate, jev_decide, jev_risk_score), so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: only for uncertain routing where deterministic evidence does not already decide the route. That is a real exclusion criterion. However, it never names the alternative tool to use when the route IS deterministic, so it stops at a 4.

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