search_arxiv

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

Discloses that keyword supports Boolean-like searches, and that output is a numbered list with specific fields. No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no results. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and output details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main features but omits pagination and result ordering. An output schema exists but its structure is only vaguely indicated. For a search tool with moderate complexity, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It mentions the main parameters (keyword, author, category, date range) and adds that keyword supports Boolean searches. But max_results and start (pagination) are not mentioned, leaving gaps. Some added meaning but incomplete.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches arXiv papers by various criteria (keyword, author, category, date range). The verb 'Search' and resource 'arXiv papers' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_pdf (download) and get_recent (likely recent papers), making purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants to find papers matching specific terms, by a specific author, in a specific category, or within a date range.' However, no guidance on when not to use or how it differs from sibling 'search_papers', missing exclusions.

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