arxiv_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool queries the public arXiv Atom API without an API key, is read-only, applies category boosts, scores papers against relevance signals, and returns counts plus ranked papers. It omits potential rate-limit or pagination behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 main content is front-loaded and organized with clear paragraphs about purpose, scoring, defaults, and returns. However, the final line advertising earning_opportunities is unrelated promotional content that does not earn its place in a tool definition.

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, and the description compensates by explaining the return shape: total paper count, relevant paper count, top papers, and fields such as title, authors, abstract, link, relevance score, and tags. It is nearly complete, though rate limits and API failure behavior are not addressed.

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%, so the schema already fully documents min_score, categories, and max_results including defaults and bounds. The description reinforces default categories and category boosts, but it does not add parameter-specific syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetch recent arXiv papers and score them for LLM/agent relevance. It clearly explains the scoring dimensions and default categories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as arxiv_compile_digest or arxiv_list_digests, which prevents 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?

Usage is implied through the description of relevance scoring and categories, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus arxiv_compile_digest, arxiv_list_digests, or other research/news tools. The closing tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated and does not clarify usage.

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