extract_arxiv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context about using the official API and the returned fields, but it does not disclose max_length behavior, pagination, or truncation, which would be valuable for a search tool.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and accepted input types are front-loaded, and the return content is summarized efficiently.

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?

The return fields are listed even though there is no output schema, which is helpful. But the max_length parameter's effect is never explained, and there is no mention of result limits or error behavior, so completeness is only moderate.

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?

Only the url parameter is described in the schema; max_length has a default but no meaning is provided. The description repeats the url semantics but does not compensate for the undocumented max_length parameter, leaving a real gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search arXiv for research papers via the official API.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the source and the output fields it returns.

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 makes it clear this tool is for arXiv searches and accepts topics, keywords, or full arXiv API URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like extract_scholar, so it stops short of full guidance.

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