OpenEvidence Article Get

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses caching behavior, pending status handling, blocking via wait_for_completion, and refresh semantics. It explains that completed answers come from local SQLite store with from_cache:true.

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?

A single paragraph that efficiently conveys key information with good front-loading. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is concise overall.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core usage and behavioral nuances. Missing details on some parameters and output format, but adequate for a fetch-and-cache tool with sibling context provided externally.

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 coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate. It explains article_id (UUID or URL), wait_for_completion, refresh, timeout_sec, poll_interval_ms, but omits include_bibtex, save_artifacts, crossref_validate, strip_citation_markers. Adds value but not enough for the low schema coverage.

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 fetches an article by id or URL, and explicitly positions it as the 'fetch-later half of fire-and-forget oe_ask', distinguishing it from siblings like oe_ask, oe_answers_search, and oe_article_set_access.

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 tells when to use (after oe_ask) and provides options: retry, wait_for_completion, or refresh. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but the context is clear.

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