Ask many questions about one state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose the exact behavior of the scoring mechanism, how confidence thresholds work (act_above/review_above) beyond the schema, or the output format (which is not in the schema). The description mentions batching but leaves critical operational details (e.g., how to interpret results, whether 'abstain' is possible) implicit.

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 concise, with a clear lead sentence stating the primary benefit, followed by a specific usage recommendation and a caveat about question independence. Each sentence earns its place; no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple question types, confidence thresholds, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which is not provided), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how confidence levels map to answers, or how to handle 'abstain' vs 'act' vs 'review'. The description covers batching but misses critical behavioral details for correct usage.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds significant context: it notes that extra questions add little latency, which implies questions is a list. However, it does not elaborate on the 'state' parameter's flexibility or the confidence thresholds' calibration. Since the schema already describes each parameter well, the description's marginal value is limited but not absent.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: asking several independent questions about the same state in a single request. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing batching multiple questions, which is unique among the sibling tools (jev_classify, jev_score, jev_check handle single questions). The verb 'ask' and resource 'state' are specific.

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 explicitly says to prefer this over repeated single-question calls, citing cost and speed benefits. It also mentions a key constraint: questions cannot see each other's answers, so speculative premises must be stated explicitly. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and warns about a behavioral limitation.

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