jev_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses windowing behavior, that `exists` is the maximum per-window probability, that more windows can inflate `exists`, and that `est_cost_usd` is based on an early-access price that may change. These are non-obvious, decision-relevant details beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. The cost caveat and inflation warning are non-obvious and earn their 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?

The description strongly covers algorithm behavior and caveats, but for a tool with 0% parameter schema coverage, an opaque `candidates` object, and no annotation context, it leaves key invocation details unexplained. An agent could still misuse `candidates` or `question` without further documentation, making this minimally viable but not complete.

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, but it never explains `query`, `candidates`, `window`, or `question`. The `candidates` object is especially opaque, and the description only indirectly references windows through output fields like `exists_by_window` and `windows` rather than clarifying the `window` parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the best candidate with an explicit abstention signal.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from text generation, which helps an agent separate it from sibling tools like jev_ask.

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 implies this is for candidate matching with an abstention signal and states what it is not ('not text generation'), but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is clear enough, though no exclusion or alternative is fully articulated.

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