jev_noul

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key output behavior: a calibrated probability between 0.0 and 1.0. It does not, however, mention that the api_key parameter implies an external service call — with attendant auth, cost, and network-failure implications — nor does it disclose error behavior, latency, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

A single tightly-worded sentence front-loads the purpose and follows with the return contract and use case. Every clause earns its place and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be spelled out), the input side is badly under-specified: two required polymorphic parameters with no guidance, no annotation safety profile, and sibling tools that could be confused with it. An agent receiving this definition cannot confidently construct a correct call to state and instructions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters — but it explains none of them. The required params state and instructions are polymorphic (string/object/array) and the agent is left guessing what content belongs in each; criteria, model, question_id, and api_key are likewise unexplained. The description only covers tool-level purpose, not how to populate the arguments.

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: 'Route a single Noul (yes/no) question to Jev' and defines the output precisely as 'the calibrated probability (0.0 to 1.0) that the answer is yes.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set (evaluate/choice/score) by its yes/no-with-probability nature, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'suitable for confidence gating and binary routing' gives useful implied usage context, signaling this is a decision/threshold tool rather than a free-form evaluation. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance against the siblings jev_evaluate, jev_choice, and jev_score, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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