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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding details annotations cannot carry: the 25-result cap, the exact result fields, the payment model, and the payment-required-on-first-call behavior. These are genuine operational traits beyond the 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?

Front-loads the use case, but the run-on sentence stringing the 25 result fields together is dense, and the field enumeration reads like a spec dump rather than discriminating guidance. The payment note is buried at the end but is at least clearly placed.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly (fields, totalResults for paging, sort options). It covers payment, sorting, and paging adequately for an agent to call it correctly; only minor gaps remain around rate limits or error shapes.

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%, so the schema documents each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond it by supplying concrete, correct query-syntax examples (au:, ti:, cat:, AND) that make the q string actionable, though it does not explain start/paging interplay in depth.

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 (search/discover) and resource (arXiv e-prints) and enumerates the query modes (keyword, title, author, field). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings arxiv_abs, arxiv_paper, and arxiv_category, which presumably deal with a single identifier rather than free-text discovery.

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?

"Use when you need to discover arXiv e-prints by keyword, title, author or field query" gives a clear triggering condition, and the query examples show acceptable inputs. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like arxiv_paper (for a known ID), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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