oahelper_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned content set and, importantly, the side effect 'Saves it to the offline library,' which is not obvious from the name. It still omits whether the operation is read-only in effect, any auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a focused parameter note; every line carries information with no filler. Minor looseness in the parenthetical about MCQ sets, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the main behavior and the offline-save side effect. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'refresh' flag and lack of any safety/auth context, but it is largely complete for a single-item fetch tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents ref_or_url well with concrete format examples, and 'optionally community solutions and images' loosely maps to include_community/include_images, but the 'refresh' parameter is never explained and the two flags are not tied explicitly to their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one OAHelper question') and enumerates the returned content (statement, MCQ answers with explanations, official solution, optional community/images), which clearly sets it apart from a search tool. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself against siblings like oahelper_search or oahelper_solution, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a question ref or URL and wants the full question. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as oahelper_search for discovery.

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