Score (ordered scale)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the score may be fractional and that the full distribution is returned, and that the scale is user-defined. However, it does not explain edge cases, scale interpretation, or output format nuances beyond that.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the operation and result, and the second lists concrete use cases. Every clause adds information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple three-parameter scoring tool, the description covers the core operation, the scale design, the returned artifacts, and likely use cases. Minor gaps remain around the exact meaning of the "full distribution" and whether the score has a specific interpretation, but these are not critical for invoking the tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters with clear definitions. The description adds context about the overall scoring behavior but not meaningful per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action — placing a state on an ordered, user-defined 2–10 level scale — and states the concrete return value (a score plus distribution). It is clearly distinct from siblings like jev_classify or jev_gate, which imply categorical or gating behavior.

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 clear applicable contexts: "Use for risk, urgency, quality, severity, fit." This helps an agent decide when scoring is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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