search_arxiv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description provides no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, error conditions, or what happens when no results are found. This is a significant gap for a search tool with many parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - it clearly communicates the core function without any fluff.

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 search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are structured, whether there are limitations or constraints, or how this tool differs from the many other search tools available. The context demands more guidance than what's provided.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from arXiv preprint server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_biorxiv, search_pubmed, etc.) beyond mentioning arXiv specifically.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many alternative search tools available on the server. There's no mention of when arXiv search is preferable to other academic databases or what makes this tool distinct from its siblings.

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