OpenEvidence Article Get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the polling/blocking behavior, the return of current status, and the existence of retry logic. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a fetch operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. No wasted words while conveying purpose, sibling relationship, and usage options.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the high-level purpose and one usage pattern but lacks details on other parameters and the structure of the return value (only 'current status'). This leaves notable gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 add meaning. It only explains 'wait_for_completion' as blocking behavior. The other six parameters (article_id, timeout_sec, poll_interval_ms, save_artifacts, crossref_validate, include_bibtex) are not described, leaving significant gaps given the parameter count.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'article (answer) by id', and explicitly identifies it as the fetch-later half of fire-and-forget oe_ask, distinguishing it from its sibling tool. This provides specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use polling vs. blocking ('retry later or pass wait_for_completion:true'), and references the companion tool oe_ask. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative approaches beyond the implicit oe_ask relationship.

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