OpenEvidence History List

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context: 'No side effects', the privacy-reduced default list, and the privacy exposure risk of include_raw=true. This goes beyond the annotations and is crucial for safe use.

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, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter listing could be integrated more smoothly. No 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 no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions 'privacy-reduced list' but lacks details on volume, format, or pagination behavior. The tool has four parameters and moderate complexity; missing information on result structure reduces completeness.

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 explain parameters. It merely lists inputs ('limit, offset, optional search, optional include_raw=false') without explaining their meaning, behavior, or constraints. For example, 'search' could filter results, but this is not clarified. The defaults and limits from the schema are not reiterated in the description.

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 lists prior OpenEvidence articles, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('prior OpenEvidence articles'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like oe_article_get (single article retrieval) and oe_ask (asking questions) by specifying the use case: inspecting prior work or obtaining an article_id.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks to inspect prior OpenEvidence work or needs an article_id'. It also provides a critical warning about include_raw: 'must be used only with explicit user intent'. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other scenarios, though the sibling context is implicit.

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