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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: each result includes probability and paper, and available roles differ between abstract-tier and full-text records.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaning. Minor awkwardness in the phrase 'sentences Jev labeled' slightly hurts readability, but there is no wasted text.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the key invocation needs: scope, returned data, and role availability by tier. The ambiguous 'Jev' reference and lack of guidance on combining query and arxiv_id are minor gaps.

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 all parameters are already documented at the schema level. The description adds role-tier context but no per-parameter semantics that the schema does not already provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: find author sentences labeled with a role across every stored record. It clearly conveys the tool's scope and output fields, making it distinguishable from sibling claim/review 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 role-based scope and record-tier coverage give clear implied usage context. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_claims or get_claims.

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