Check a condition

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that 'answers.result.noul is the probability of yes from 0 to 1, not a guaranteed truth or enforcement decision,' that the call sends input to Jev AI and consumes account credits, that rate limits apply, and that there are no automatic retries. This gives an agent realistic expectations about side effects and reliability.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core function, the probabilistic-result caveat, the sibling routing, the auth/cost/rate-limit warning, and the return/no-retry note. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For an external, cost-incurring API call with no output schema, the description covers required auth (JEV_AI_API_KEY), side effects (credits, rate limits), retry behavior, and key return fields (model, answers, usage). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the response.

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 'state' and 'instructions' thoroughly. The description adds a yes/no framing and an output caveat, but it does not contribute new input-parameter semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate a yes/no condition.' It also differentiates itself from a sibling by telling the agent to 'Use jev_decide for multiple questions,' so the agent can pick the correct tool without inspecting every schema.

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?

There is explicit routing: 'Use jev_decide for multiple questions' establishes the single-question scope and gives a concrete alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the other sibling tools like jev_classify, jev_score, or jev_gate, so the when-not-to-use guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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