ArXiv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context including the three action modes, the non-natural-language query syntax, and the side effect that 'Papers retrieved via the paper action are automatically tracked on the research shelf.' No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 with sections for Actions, Query Formats, and Search Operators, plus examples. Every sentence contributes functional guidance, making it appropriately sized for a tool with three distinct actions and a complex query language. It is concise relative to its complexity.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values and does so by listing what paper details are retrievable (abstract, authors, categories, affiliations, DOI, journal refs). It also covers category browsing, query formats, and side effects, making the tool's behavior fully comprehensible to an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with highly detailed descriptions for every parameter, including query syntax, examples, and defaults. The description partially duplicates this information but adds the research-shelf tracking side effect and a condensed operator reference. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search and retrieve academic papers from arXiv,' providing a specific verb and resource. It further enumerates the three distinct actions (search, paper, category) and explicitly notes that arXiv URLs are also handled by web_fetch_incisive, which differentiates this tool from its siblings.

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 opens with 'Use this for arXiv paper lookups' and then lists concrete scenarios. It also provides an exclusion by stating 'arXiv abstract and PDF URLs are also handled automatically by web_fetch_incisive,' telling the agent when to use a different tool. This is clear guidance on when to use versus alternatives.

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