search_papers

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 but offers minimal information. It mentions searching 'by various criteria' but doesn't describe what happens when multiple criteria are combined, whether results are paginated, what format results come in, or any rate limits or authentication requirements for arXiv API access.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there are limitations beyond the documented max_results parameter, or how this differs from sibling search tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'various criteria,' which is already evident from the parameter names. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 for papers') and resource ('on arXiv'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_by_category' which appears to offer more targeted searching, missing an opportunity for clear differentiation.

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 alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_by_category' available, there's no indication of when this general search is preferable versus more specialized searches, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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