veroq_research_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of papers with specific fields and mentions a cost of 1 credit. However, it does not explain whether the tool modifies data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, with a clear opening line, followed by structured sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). However, the EXAMPLE is an empty object '{}', which adds little value; it could be omitted or replaced with a realistic example. Overall, it is well-organized and focused.

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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description explains the output fields but omits details like pagination, result count, sorting, or update frequency. Users might need to know if results are limited or how to get older papers. The description is functional but lacks some completeness.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter documentation, and per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not add unnecessary details about parameters.

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 'Latest arXiv AI/ML research papers' and specifies 'returns list of papers with title, authors, abstract, categories, and arXiv URL'. It clearly identifies the tool as providing recent AI/ML academic papers from arXiv, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'veroq_research' and 'veroq_research_github' that cover different research domains.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating 'To discover recent academic research in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Good for tracking cutting-edge developments.' However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives for related tasks (e.g., if the user needs non-AI papers or different filtering criteria).

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