Assess an action

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool sends input to Jev AI, consumes account credits, is subject to rate limits, and performs no automatic retries. It also clarifies that it does not execute or enforce actions, which is consistent with the destructiveHint=false annotation. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure the annotations do not capture.

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 four sentences, each adding substantive value: purpose, outputs, non-execution and policy responsibility, authentication and side effects, and return fields. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but front-loads the core purpose and remains efficient.

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 a tool that calls an external API, consumes credits, has rate limits, and returns structured data without an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (recommendation, risk, model, answers, usage), side effects, and the lack of retries. The agent has enough information to call it correctly and set expectations.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters ('action' and 'context'), each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Assess an action before execution') and clearly distinguishes itself by naming its outputs ('allow/confirm/block classification' and 'risk score') and its non-execution nature. It is immediately apparent how this differs from the sibling tools, which likely perform related but distinct operations.

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 provides clear context: use it to assess an action before execution, and it explicitly says it does not enforce actions, so the agent must retain its own permission policy. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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