Search arXiv Papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still earns credit for adding non-annotation context: no PDF download, concise metadata output, and that the returned arXiv IDs are reusable inputs for the sibling tools.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the routing/exclusion notes follow in priority order.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still sketches what comes back (IDs, metadata) and how to chain it. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, with both query and max_results documented in the schema (including bounds and default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, language, or formatting detail for the query parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb and resource ("Search arXiv") plus the return shape ("concise paper metadata"). It also positions itself against siblings by telling the agent to use it first when no arXiv ID is supplied, so an agent can distinguish it from literature_get_paper_details and friends without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: "Use this first when the user wants literature recommendations or has not supplied an arXiv ID," plus a clear negative ("It does not download PDFs") and a hand-off path (returned IDs pass to the other literature tools). The only gap is that the alternatives are referred to generically rather than named as literature_get_paper_details / literature_prepare_paper.

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