Screen content before it enters agent context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains the evaluation dimensions, the recommendation values (pass|review|block|skip), and the conditional relevance behavior. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or response structure beyond the recommendation list, but the judging nature is clear.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the output contract without fluff. The reference to the cookbook pattern is useful and compact. Every sentence earns its 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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it states inputs, output categories, and conditional behavior. It could be more explicit about the probability output format or threshold semantics, but the schema already covers threshold parameters.

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 schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds some context by linking 'purpose' to the relevance judgment and 'skip' action, but it does not meaningfully supplement the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb ('Judge'), a specific resource (fetched or external text), and the analysis dimensions (injection probability, substantive content, relevance). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools jev_verify and jev_find, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 clearly identifies when to use the tool: 'before an agent reads it.' It implies the guardrail context and references a cookbook pattern, giving solid situational context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among the siblings.

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