Semantic search over candidates

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'no embeddings needed', 'One Choice scores every candidate', and a 'Noul' check preventing an unsupported 'top hit'. It does not cover output format or error behavior, but for a read-style search tool the core operation is well disclosed.

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?

Description is two information-dense sentences plus a link and a use case. The opening sentence front-loads the main function. Some jargon ('One Choice', 'Noul', 'TypeSafe Jev') could be clearer, but nothing is extraneous.

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 tool is moderately complex with a nested candidates array and no output schema. The description gives use context but does not explain return shape, how the 'Noul' result appears, or when to prefer jev_screen/jev_verify over jev_find. These gaps matter given the absence of an output schema.

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 mentions plain-language query and candidate count, but these largely repeat schema content. No additional parameter-level insight (e.g. top_k behavior, id conventions) is added beyond the schema.

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 ('Rank candidates against a plain-language query') and adds a concrete use case ('which file/note/line covers X'). It is clearly a search/ranking tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings jev_screen or jev_verify, so it misses the top score.

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?

Provides a clear trigger phrase ('Use for which file/note/line covers X') and a capacity limit (up to 250 candidates). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or reference alternatives among the named siblings, so it falls short of full guidance.

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