Knowra

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds real operational context: the return is text with figure captions, up to five concurrent requests are recommended per batch, and a timeout should be retried after waiting. That rate-limit and failure-handling detail is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational information (availability flag, return contents, fallback, concurrency, retry). The opening sentence is a dense clause pile and could be trimmed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still tells the agent the shape of the return (text with figure captions) and where to go for deeper verification. Combined with concurrency and retry guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds provenance the schema lacks — that paper_id comes from search results and that scout_available signals availability — which is useful for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a precisely scoped resource: a structured analysis containing signals, methodology, evidence, experimental conditions, verification points and author-stated limitations. The phrase 'beyond the abstract' implicitly separates it from search_papers, and the tied scout_available flag makes the relationship concrete.

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?

Explicit triggers are given ('when these details help assess a candidate, compare findings, or understand the context of a claim'). It also names the fallback path ('consult the original paper through source_url'), how to know the tool applies (scout_available=true in search results), and batching/retry rules for concurrency and timeouts.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by warning that entitlement expiry and quota reset time are different events — a semantic distinction that prevents misreading the response.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence carries a non-obvious disambiguation rather than filler. The enumeration in the first sentence is slightly listy but each item maps to real returned data.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema that documents return values, the description carries little remaining burden. It covers the core purpose and the one semantic trap; only the absence of routing guidance against get_scout keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter 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 names a specific verb ("Check") and enumerates the concrete resources returned: quota, usage, remaining allowance, reset time, plan, and entitlement details. That is more specific than the bare title, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like search_papers, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_scout.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for quota/plan questions — but the description never states when to call it versus get_scout, nor any preconditions or exclusions. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: month-bounded date windows, earliest supported date (2025-08-01), the scout_available flag signaling deeper analysis is requestable, and a retry_after_seconds/timeout protocol. These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the remaining lines are dense, each carrying a distinct rule (concurrency, scout routing, date pairing, retry). It is slightly long and the scout sentence is split awkwardly across two lines, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here; the description instead covers the decision-relevant edges — date bounds, concurrency, failure/retry, and escalation to get_scout. Nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 75% and the description adds real meaning beyond it: from/to are UTC-inclusive, must be supplied as a pair, and each pair spans at most one calendar month; query should be English natural language with entities preserved. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is fine given its default/max are documented there.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Discover indexed arXiv papers') and states the matching surface (titles, authors, abstracts) plus the goal (assess relevance). It also names the sibling get_scout and explains the relationship, so an agent can separate full-text search from deeper paper analysis without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes query formulation for broad questions ('consider distinct research dimensions and query each'), recommends 5-10 concurrent requests for batches, and routes to get_scout when deeper evidence is needed. It also gives clear exclusion-style rules for the date window ('provide both or neither', 'omit both for all indexed dates') and retry behavior on timeouts.

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