AxPaperSearch_search_arxiv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state what the tool returns (titles, authors, abstracts, direct PDF links) and implies an external search operation. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as network requirements, result truncation, or differences between preprint and published literature, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and output, and the second adds concrete use cases. Every clause 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?

For a simple search tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, and when it is useful. There is no output schema, but the description names the return fields. It could add a direct note on how it differs from OpenAlex search, but that is not necessary for calling the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters and their defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'matching a query,' which is consistent with the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search arXiv for preprints matching a query.' It also names the returned content—titles, authors, abstracts, and direct PDF links—so an agent can clearly tell this is an arXiv-specific paper search. This distinguishes it from the sibling AxPaperSearch_search_openalex even without explicitly naming that alternative.

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 gives clear usage context: it is 'useful for finding the primary source of a claim, or for downloading papers to use as context instead of relying on memorized standard results.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternative search tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use cases are clear.

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