OpenEvidence Ask

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

Openly states the side effect of creating a question/article in the user's account and mentions privacy-reduced data return. This goes beyond annotations which only indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=false, providing concrete 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 concise with 4-5 sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose and adds practical guidance without 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?

Provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly, including async pattern and follow-up. Lacks details on return structure and error handling, but overall complete given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the key parameters original_article_id and wait_for_completion with their usage intent. However, it does not address other important parameters like timeout_sec, personalization_enabled, or article_type, leaving some gaps.

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 'Create an OpenEvidence research question' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from medical advice. It also implies differentiation from the sibling oe_article_wait by describing the async workflow.

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?

Explicitly advises when to set wait_for_completion=false and use oe_article_wait for long questions, and instructs to use original_article_id only for true follow-up continuity. This provides clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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