use_jev_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: no browser, parallel answering, shared state, per-question token cost, and a concrete output shape (chosen option, probabilities, confidence, API-counted tokens). It also points to a prerequisite resource to read before first use.

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?

The description is longer than average but each block earns its place: purpose, when-to-use examples, batching behavior, cost, output, and prerequisite resource. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into readable paragraphs, though a few example bullets could be trimmed without loss.

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 nested 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers the output fields, cost, parallelism, and a mandatory reference resource. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that questions in one call share the same state, run in parallel, and are billed per question, which clarifies how the 'questions' object should be used beyond schema wording.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Ask Jev one typed question, or several, with no browser involved.' It explains what Jev returns (probabilities, confidence) and gives concrete decision examples, so an agent understands exactly what the tool is for and can distinguish it from browser-action siblings like run_action.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it whenever a decision has more than one defensible answer' and provides a detailed list of worthwhile decisions. It does not spell out when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it misses the when-not/alternatives part of the top band.

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