search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 2000 result cap, 30000 total pagination limit, and the session cache-pinning side effect, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 well-organized into three focused paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no annotation support, the description covers query construction, parameter semantics, limits, pagination, and side effects. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose. This is complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: query syntax, category/author/title/abstract shortcuts, id_list alternative, sort_by/sort_order allowed values, max_results cap, start pagination, and session_id caching behavior. This is comprehensive.

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 'Search arXiv and return compact paper metadata,' identifying the specific verb, resource, and return type. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing search over retrieval (e.g., id_list vs get_paper).

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?

Provides clear guidance on using raw query syntax vs structured shortcuts vs id_list, and explains pagination with start/max_results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_paper or download_paper, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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