Rate on an ordered scale

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result is probabilistic, 'can land between levels' (non-integer outcomes), and includes distribution, confidence, and a recommended action. This frames how the tool behaves semantically.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The purpose and return behavior are front-loaded, and the usage guidance (the differentiator from siblings) comes second. Every clause earns its place, and nothing repeats what the schema or annotations already provide.

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 has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, usage scope, and behavioral output adequately. The threshold parameters (act_above, review_above) are left to the schema, which documents them fully. Only minor enhancement would be naming the alternative sibling explicitly, which the usage guidance dimension already captures.

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 schema already documents that levels must be 'ordered, lowest first' and that question is 'the only instruction Jev sees.' The description adds only marginal signal: 'along an ordered scale you define' reinforces the levels parameter's semantics that the schema already states. It does not materially extend parameter meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Rate the state along an ordered scale you define') and distinguishes itself from category-picking tools. The sentence 'Use for degree or severity, not for picking a category' explicitly separates it from siblings like jev_classify, leaving no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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?

'Use for degree or severity, not for picking a category' provides an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule. It clearly signals a category-picking alternative exists among the siblings, though it stops short of naming the specific tool (jev_classify) that should be selected instead.

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