search_by_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching papers by category but doesn't describe what the search returns (metadata, abstracts, full content?), pagination behavior beyond the parameters, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary preamble.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what results look like (paper metadata, abstracts, IDs?), how results are structured, or provide context about the arXiv category system. The agent would need to infer or guess about the output format and behavioral characteristics.

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 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain category format examples beyond what's in the schema, or provide context about typical usage patterns for the 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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('papers'), and specifies the scope ('in a specific arXiv category'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' - both appear to search papers, so the distinction isn't articulated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' or 'get_paper'. It mentions the category constraint but doesn't explain if this is the only way to search by category or when other search approaches might be more appropriate.

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