Get recent arXiv papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the scoping constraints 'most recently submitted' and 'in one arXiv category', but does not describe ordering, pagination, or default behavior beyond what the schema and output schema cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the function directly, the second gives a concise usage hint. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers scope and intended use. It omits mention of the max_results default, but that is already in the schema, so the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 both 'category' and 'max_results' are fully documented including allowed values and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb 'Return' and specific resource 'the most recently submitted papers in one arXiv category', which distinguishes it from search tools. Also includes the explicit use case 'current literature scans and research updates', making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the tool via 'Use for current literature scans and research updates'. It does not name sibling tools like search_arxiv or explicitly state when not to use it, but the recency-focused wording implies it is for recent-paper scans rather than broad search.

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