Search arXiv

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'official' nature of the index and pagination support, but no other behavioral traits. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 no filler, front-loading the core purpose and usage. The description is concise and structured effectively for quick agent scanning.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, query types, general discovery, and pagination. Sort options are not mentioned but are evident from schema enums and defaults, so the description is complete enough 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 coverage is 60% with descriptions for query, start, and max_results. The description enriches the query parameter by noting 'advanced arXiv query syntax,' which adds value beyond the schema. sort_by and sort_order are left to their enums and defaults, which are self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('official arXiv index'), and input types ('keywords or advanced arXiv query syntax'). It also mentions 'general paper discovery' which hints at differentiation from author/category-specific siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 clear usage context with 'Use this for general paper discovery and pagination.' It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the context implies these are covered by other sibling tools.

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