Search arXiv

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, simply confirming it searches for papers and optionally filters by category, without addressing rate limits, response format, or other behaviors.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's action and scope. It is concise with no filler, earning a high score.

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?

The tool has an output schema and good annotations, but the description is very brief and omits guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. It doesn't mention sorting or max_results behavior, though these are discoverable from schema. Overall, it's adequate for a simple search tool but lacks some contextual completeness.

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 describes query and categories, but sort and max_results lack descriptions, leaving 50% coverage. The description only repeats optional category filtering and doesn't explain sorting or result limits, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 tool searches arXiv for papers matching a query, with an optional category filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paper and read_paper, which likely retrieve specific papers rather than search.

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 clear context for using this tool to search for papers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as get_paper for known papers. However, the verb 'search' and the sibling names imply the appropriate scenario, though no exclusions are stated.

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