search_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that results are sorted by relevance and categorized by time range (1/3/5 years), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a clear main sentence followed by parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information. There is no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with a brief behavioral note upfront.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the input parameters and mentions key behaviors (sorting, categorization). The tool is simple, and this description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description provides explicit meaning for each parameter in the Args section, including examples and constraints (e.g., max_results default 20, max 50; category example 'cs.CV'). This adds significant value beyond the schema, which has no descriptions (0% 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 searches arXiv papers by topic/keyword, with sorting by relevance and categorization by time range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_paper_by_id or get_recommended_papers, which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used. It only states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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