search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the arXiv-specific query syntax with an example, explains sort fields and directions, and notes the source. This gives the agent useful behavioral context for constructing searches, though it doesn't describe return format or any edge cases like no results. It is substantial but not exhaustive.

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 and well-structured: a single-sentence overview followed by a clear bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and the lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides essential context: the source (arXiv), query syntax, and parameter semantics. It doesn't explain the return shape, but the function name and sibling context make 'search' behavior predictable. Overall, it is nearly complete for a search tool.

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 schema provides only types and defaults, leaving the meaning of parameters entirely to the description. The description explains the query parameter with detailed arXiv syntax and an example, and defines max_results, sort_by (with valid values), and sort_order (with valid directions). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 is a 'General purpose search for academic papers from sources like arXiv' and notes it's 'Best for complex queries.' This uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'), and the 'general purpose' contrast distinguishes it from specialized siblings like find_papers_by_author or get_latest_from_category.

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 phrase 'Best for complex queries' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it's preferred over the more specialized sibling tools for complex or broad searches. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't fully meet the bar for explicit exclusions.

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