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

Annotations only mark this read-only and open-world; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing sort order (newest first), the 25-result ceiling, summary truncation at 500 characters, and a cost/payment model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failed calls free). The per-call price is critical behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence covers scope, ordering, limits and returned fields; the attribution and pricing lines are separated and each carries actionable information. No filler, though the single sentence packs a lot of clauses.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure, yet it still names the key fields returned. For a read-only, three-parameter search tool, the only real gap is failure-mode behavior and the meaning of the limit string type.

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 100%, so the schema already documents q, limit and category with a default value. The description adds only a bit of meaning (one category, newest-first ordering, max 25) and does not explain the discrepancy in emphasis between 'max 25' and the schema's stated default of 5.

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 pair ('arXiv papers matching search terms') and scopes it (single optional category, newest first, max 25). It is clearly an arXiv search tool, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling academic search tools like pubmed or research_papers.

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?

The phrase 'optionally in one category' and 'max 25' imply the usage pattern, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over pubmed/research_papers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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