Verify Step Completion

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that verification is rubric-scored and that it deliberately avoids redundant review loops, and it enumerates the return fields even though no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by tightly formatted Use-when / Do-NOT-use-when / Returns blocks; every sentence carries information. The Returns enumeration is somewhat long but is the only documentation of output shape given no output schema, so it earns its space.

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 two-parameter, read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, exclusions, and the full return contract (is_verified, satisfaction_probability, rigor_score, needs_rework, confidence). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on both required parameters, the schema already documents that produced_output is the evidence and acceptance_criteria is the definition of done. The description adds no format, syntax, or sizing guidance for either, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Calibrates step completion') and the mechanism ('typed rubric scoring'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with its siblings (jev_triage_test_failure, jev_check_abort, etc.), though their purposes are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' clauses give both the trigger condition (agent believes a task/milestone is complete, wants to verify acceptance criteria) and the exclusion (work underway or tests actively failing). Nothing 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.