Yes/no with a probability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the meaning of probability near 0.5 ('not medium') and that there is no separate confidence, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention side effects (likely none) or any operational constraints like rate limits. The description covers the output interpretation but lacks broader behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys the output, the probability interpretation nuance, and a usage tip. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (6 params) and the presence of a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances (probability interpretation, multi-label usage). It doesn't discuss thresholds (no_at_or_below/yes_at_or_above) but those are in the schema. The absence of annotations is partially compensated by the description's clarity on output meaning. Overall adequate.

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 does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The note about 'the only instruction Jev sees' appears in the schema for 'question', not in the description. Thus, the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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: ask a yes/no question and get a probability plus verdict. It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('yes/no question'), and clarifies the output format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like jev_classify or jev_ask, though the yes/no framing implies a binary judgment.

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 gives some usage context: 'Use one check per label when several labels may apply at once.' This advises on handling multi-label scenarios but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There's no mention of exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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