Search arXiv by author

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the schema — it doesn't disclose fuzzy-name matching behavior, how arXiv normalizes author names, pagination, or that 'Roger Penrose' style input may need tuning. The 'Find' verb is consistent with readOnly, so no contradiction, but the description contributes little beyond what annotations provide.

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 tightly written sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the selection rule follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameters are documented. The main omission is guidance on how this tool differs from the general search_arxiv sibling — an agent may not know whether search_arxiv accepts a topic instead of an author. For a simple two-parameter search tool this is borderline adequate but could be more decisive.

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% — both author_name and max_results are fully documented with examples and constraints in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 and resource — 'Find arXiv papers written by a named author' — and pins the distinguishing constraint (author as the main search dimension). This differentiates it from siblings like search_arxiv_by_category, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the general search_arxiv tool. Clear enough for an agent to pick correctly in most cases.

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?

'Use this when the author is the main search constraint' gives a concrete selection rule, which is useful. However, it never names alternatives or states when this tool should NOT be used — e.g., when category or general keyword search is more appropriate. The guidance is present but minimal and leaves the sibling boundary to inference.

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