Evaluate rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses the result shape for both rule types and gives an actionable behavioral rule ('When uncertain is true, ask the user instead of acting'). It does not cover error behavior or how the single Jev call handles large rule sets, but the uncertainty-handling guidance is genuine behavioral value.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: scope, output shape (needed because there is no output schema), and the uncertainty-handling rule. The scope is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully explains both result variants and the uncertain flag. The nested custom_rules structure and file-resolution defaults are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage, but a note on rule precedence would round it out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose mapping of 'rules from the rules file and/or custom rules' to the rules_file/custom_rules parameters, with no format, precedence, or override semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb and resource ('Decide several rules at once ... for the given context') and the phrase 'several rules at once' implicitly contrasts with the single-decision siblings ask_yes_no and ask_choice. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Decide several rules at once' implies the batch use case, and 'Uses rules from the rules file and/or custom rules' hints at the input source, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus ask_yes_no/ask_choice or list_rules, and no exclusions. Usage is left to inference.

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