:

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose whether this is read-only (implied by 'List'), what time range of history is returned, expected response format, or rate limiting. Only behavioral hint is 'from OpenEvidence account' suggesting scope is user-specific.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words or filler. Efficiently located at the start of the description. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, the extreme brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal information density.

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?

With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral details, the single-sentence description is materially incomplete. Does not explain what 'question history' contains, how pagination works, or what search queries can filter.

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 has 0% description coverage (limit, offset, search completely undocumented). Description adds zero information about these three parameters—does not explain pagination semantics (limit/offset) or search functionality. Critical failure to compensate for absent schema documentation.

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?

States specific verb (List) and resource (question history from OpenEvidence account). Implies retrieval of past queries, differentiating from sibling 'oe_ask' (likely for submitting new questions) and 'oe_article_get' (likely for retrieving articles). Could be strengthened by explicitly stating this retrieves the user's previously asked questions.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not mention prerequisites (though 'from OpenEvidence account' hints auth may be required) or when pagination parameters are necessary. No explicit alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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