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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the search action and does not explain what happens when q is empty, how matching works, result limits, pagination, or any other behavioral traits.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the search scope and supported query dimensions. It is concise and contains no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the resource and query type. However, it omits usage context, default behavior, and any differentiation from sibling search tools, leaving gaps for an agent deciding when and how to use it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description gives the single parameter q meaningful semantics by specifying that search can be by title, author, or keyword. This adds value beyond the schema's bare string type, though it leaves syntax and empty-query behavior unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('search') on a defined resource ('arXiv paper') and specifies query dimensions by title/author/keyword. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from generic or unrelated sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related scholarly search siblings such as semanticscholar, pubmed, dblp, or openalexwork. The description implies a free-text query through 'q' but does not provide context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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