Search an arXiv category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—such as how results are ordered, whether it searches titles or abstracts, or pagination behavior. Since annotations handle the basic traits, the description contributes little additional transparency.

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 only two sentences, both essential. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the category examples are useful without being verbose. Zero wasted words—ideal conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema covering return format and annotations covering safety, so those gaps are filled. However, the description omits operational details such as result sorting, whether keywords apply to title/abstract/full text, or any limits beyond max_results (already in schema). For a search tool, these details affect effective usage, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification ('optionally narrowed by keywords') that mirrors the schema's own description ('Optional keywords to combine with the category'). The category examples are duplicated. No substantial meaning is added beyond the schema, so it stays at baseline.

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 a specific action ('Search within one arXiv subject category') and the resource (arXiv category). It provides examples of valid categories, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv, relying on the name to convey the category-specific scope, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criteria.

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 implies usage context by naming specific categories ('Use for fields such as gr-qc, hep-th...'), but this is more about parameter format than tool selection. It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_arxiv or search_arxiv_by_author, nor any exclusions. The context is implied rather than stated.

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