search_arxiv

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions that keyword supports Boolean-like searches and that results are a numbered list with specific fields. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination, error handling, or how empty results are handled.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficiently covers main parameters and return value. Could be slightly more structured but is generally concise.

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 7 parameters, 0 required, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the core search functionality and return fields. It lacks details on parameter format and pagination. The presence of an output schema reduces burden but does not fully compensate.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of keyword, author, category, and date range parameters, but does not clarify format for dates or categories, and omits max_results and start. The Boolean-like search hint adds some value.

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 it searches arXiv papers by keyword, author, category, and/or date range. It specifies what is returned (title, ID, authors, date, PDF link). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like fetch_pdf and get_paper by focusing on search, but does not distinguish from search_papers.

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?

Description provides explicit usage context: 'Use when the user wants to find papers matching specific terms...' but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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