search_arxiv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the underlying API, the exact return payload fields, and the non-obvious behavior that year filtering happens locally on published date rather than server-side. It says nothing about rate limits, pagination, failure modes, or result caps, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the identity and endpoint, then the return shape, then the filtering caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical endpoint adds mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields well enough that an agent knows what comes back. The gap is input-side: five parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotation coverage leave sort and max_results behavior unspecified.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the semantics of year_from/year_to (local filtering on published date), but query, sort, and max_results receive no explanation at all.

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+resource: searches arXiv via its documented public API endpoint. Naming arXiv implicitly separates it from search_crossref and search_semanticscholar, but it never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and the sibling tools (search_crossref, search_semanticscholar, search_tavily) are never referenced. The agent must infer from the source name alone which search backend to pick.

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