Alphaxiv Fulltext

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: it is not subject to arXiv rate limits and it is paginated like fetch_page. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure modes (e.g. a paper not indexed by alphaxiv), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool followed by the reason to prefer it. Nothing is repeated from the title and every clause adds routing or behavioral information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be restated, and the description covers routing, source, and pagination. The remaining gap is the undocumented max_chars parameter, which an agent must guess at to control response size.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema itself has no per-field descriptions for offset or max_chars. The description clarifies arxiv_id (bare ID or arxiv/alphaxiv URL) and hints that paging works via offset, but max_chars is never mentioned, leaving a third of the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (extract), resource (full text of an arXiv paper) and format (markdown from alphaxiv.org). The scoping clause about rate limits and section-level detail lets an agent distinguish it from fetch_page/fetch_pdf without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives to use instead (fetch_page/fetch_pdf) and the condition that selects this tool: arXiv papers needing section-level detail. It also states the negative condition implicitly by limiting scope to arXiv papers.

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