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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds context about the scope of search and returned data. It does not describe rate limits or error handling, but given annotations, the added transparency is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value – purpose, return data, usage guidance.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively lists what is returned (titles, authors, abstracts, dates, PDF links). All relevant information for an agent to select and invoke the tool is present.

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%, but description adds meaning: query is described as a research topic with examples, and max_results is described with a default value and suitability for focused research. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it searches arXiv for academic papers in specific domains (CS, ML, AI, physics, mathematics) and lists the data returned (titles, authors, abstracts, dates, PDF links). It distinguishes from siblings like search_google_scholar by specifying arXiv as the source and the fields covered.

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 states 'Use for researching algorithms, ML techniques, or emerging CS topics,' providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is well-defined.

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