bc_get_recent_biorxiv_preprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the return structure (dict with server, search_params, etc.) and mentions pagination. However, it omits potential rate limits, error conditions, or any read-only guarantees.

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 two paragraphs: first states purpose, second explains return. It is front-loaded and efficient, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve clarity.

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?

With 8 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers search methods and return format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error handling, edge cases, or how this tool relates to bc_get_biorxiv_preprint_details given the many sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the mutual exclusivity of search methods (date range, days, recent_count) and summarizing the return format, which is not in the schema.

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 tool searches bioRxiv/medRxiv preprints by date range or recent count, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like bc_get_biorxiv_preprint_details, which likely handles individual preprint details.

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 instructs to specify one search method (date range, days, or recent_count) but does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool over siblings or what not to do. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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