OpenEvidence Ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the fire-and-forget default, blocking option, relay dependency, deprecation of direct Node POST, and the DataDome-free context. It does not mention rate limits or authentication beyond the relay, but overall transparency is high.

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 well-structured, starting with the core action and default behavior, then detailing the blocking option and follow-up capability, and ending with technical prerequisites. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise without losing key information.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and return format for the default case. It lacks details on the blocking response structure and does not explain many optional parameters. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 to parameters. It only explains wait_for_completion and original_article_id. The remaining 10 parameters (timeout_sec, poll_interval_ms, disable_caching, etc.) are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose beyond the schema's defaults.

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 creates a question, explains the default fire-and-forget behavior, and distinguishes from its sibling oe_article_get by noting that the answer can be fetched later. It also mentions follow-up questions via original_article_id, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use fire-and-forget versus blocking mode, how to handle follow-ups, and the prerequisite of the relay extension. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool but implies it via the alternative oe_article_get. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit exclusions.

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