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

The description adds the important behavioral context that the tool is deprecated and behaves identically to biorxiv_details. However, it does not describe any actual behavior beyond that reference. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive characteristics, so the description's main additional value is the deprecation status.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that immediately signals DEPRECATED ALIAS, then gives the essential routing direction. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or 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 deprecated alias, the description fully covers the key decision: use biorxiv_details instead. The schema fully documents all parameters and the output schema describes results, so invocation mechanics are covered. It only lacks a direct statement of what the underlying details operation actually does, but that is intentionally delegated to the canonical tool.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter documentation, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already covers semantics such as mutually exclusive DOI and date-or-range, pagination cursor, and server options. This is the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for biorxiv_details and states that it has identical behavior, which lets an agent understand this is a legacy compatibility shim rather than a distinct function. It does not directly state the underlying operation, but the explicit reference to the canonical sibling provides a solid semantic anchor and distinguishes it from other 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?

The description explicitly says new callers should use biorxiv_details instead, and that this tool is kept only for existing callers. This gives unambiguous routing guidance and names the alternative, leaving no doubt about when to use or avoid this tool.

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