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. It states it's a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination details beyond parameters, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of papers with metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Search for papers on arXiv') and adds a brief qualifier ('by various criteria'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral constraints like rate limits, or how to interpret results. For a search tool with multiple siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'various criteria', which aligns with the schema but doesn't compensate for any gaps (none exist here). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the 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 action ('Search for papers') and resource ('on arXiv'), specifying the domain. It mentions 'by various criteria' which hints at flexibility, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_category', which might handle more specific filtering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_category' or 'get_paper'. The description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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