Search arXiv Papers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with open-world data. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing advanced search syntax, examples, and the ability to filter by category, which helps the agent understand how to construct effective queries. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by syntax details and examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (search with advanced syntax), low schema coverage (0%), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and examples, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively in context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining the semantics of the 'query' parameter in detail (e.g., advanced syntax, examples) and implies the use of 'max_results' through examples like limiting results. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and actionable.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for papers on arXiv') and resource ('by title and abstract content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_paper_data' (likely for retrieving specific papers), 'list_categories' (for listing categories), and 'update_categories' (for updating categories). It provides a verb+resource+scope combination that is precise and differentiated.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by naming an alternative tool ('use list_categories tool to see available categories') and includes examples that illustrate when to use specific syntax (e.g., for title, abstract, author, category filtering). It effectively guides the agent on how to apply the tool in different contexts without being misleading.

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