OpenEvidence Ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions optional wait and follow-up but does not explain async behavior, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 only two sentences, which is concise but under-specified for a complex tool. It front-loads the main action but omits important details. It could add more context without becoming verbose.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, error handling, or the purpose of many parameters, making it incomplete for correct agent invocation.

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?

Only two parameters (question and original_article_id) are hinted at in the description. With 12 total parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the remaining 10 parameters (e.g., wait_for_completion, timeout_sec, disable_caching) are unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance.

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, with optional waiting for completion and support for follow-up via original_article_id. This distinguishes it from siblings like oe_article_get (article retrieval) and oe_history_list (history listing).

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 mentions follow-up usage but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It implies use for new or follow-up questions but does not specify when not to use or mention sibling tools.

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