OpenEvidence History List

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says "list." It fails to mention pagination behavior implied by limit/offset, whether it returns only the authenticated user's history, or any rate limits. The minimal description does not compensate for missing 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 extremely concise at one sentence, but this brevity sacrifices necessary information about parameters and usage context. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured, failing to earn its place by omitting critical details.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on pagination, search functionality, return value format, and any prerequisites, making it insufficient for effective tool use.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, offset, search). The agent receives no semantic help beyond the schema's basic type/constraint info, leaving the parameters largely unclear.

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 states "List question history from OpenEvidence account," clearly identifying the action (list) and resource (question history). It distinguishes from sibling tools like oe_ask (ask questions) and oe_collections_list (list collections), though it could be more specific about what constitutes 'history.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions for use, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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