search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as supporting advanced query syntax with field prefixes and Boolean operators, and includes examples. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond the 'start' parameter, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). The description adds useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details query syntax with clear bullet points and examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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 complexity (5 parameters, advanced query syntax) and rich schema (100% coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the query parameter semantics well and provides examples. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by mentioning behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this gap.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the 'query' parameter in detail with field prefixes and Boolean operators, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic description. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics for other parameters like 'max_results', 'start', 'sort_by', or 'sort_order'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does 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 tool's purpose: 'Search arXiv papers with advanced query syntax.' It specifies the resource (arXiv papers) and the action (search) with a distinguishing feature (advanced query syntax). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'download_paper', 'get_paper', and 'list_downloaded_papers', which have different functions.

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 implies usage through examples and query syntax details, suggesting it's for searching arXiv papers with specific field prefixes and Boolean operators. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_paper' (likely for retrieving a specific paper) or 'list_downloaded_papers' (likely for local files). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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