Web-search directive (plan only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds important behavioral traits: it produces a plan only, no web call is made, and the user must perform the search and feed results back via add_finding. This is valuable context beyond 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?

Two sentences: first provides the core functionality and output structure; second gives usage guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers the tool's process, constraints (no web call), and integration with other tools (add_finding). Complete for a planning tool, though some might want more detail on output interpretation.

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?

Only one parameter 'problem' with schema description already present. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Args: problem (description)'), which doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it provides a structured web-search plan, listing specific components (arXiv query strings, sub-fields, named results, other tools). It distinguishes itself by noting mathlas makes no web call and directs the user to use add_finding, differentiating it from sibling 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?

States 'Use when the local index missed' which is a clear context for use. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives beyond that, but the context is clear enough. Could be more explicit about exclusions.

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