Alphaxiv Lookup

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the payload (overview fields, machine-readable report, abstract, bibtex, citations), which is real behavioral context, and the read-only nature is implied by 'look up'. However it says nothing about failure modes (paper not indexed on alphaxiv), rate limits, or whether the overview is cached/stale — gaps that matter for an agent deciding whether to trust the result.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return content, then the input format flexibility, then the sibling routing rule. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 the return-value enumeration is bonus context rather than a necessity, and the accepted input formats are fully covered. The only substantive gap for a 2-parameter lookup is the unexplained lang parameter and any note on behavior when a paper lacks an alphaxiv entry.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does well for arxiv_id: bare ID, version suffix, and arxiv/alphaxiv URL forms are all spelled out. But the second parameter, lang, is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 (look up) and resource (an arXiv paper on alphaxiv.org), then enumerates exactly what is returned: structured overview, report, abstract, bibtex, cited papers. The distinction from alphaxiv_fulltext is made explicit, so the agent can discriminate without opening the 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use alphaxiv_fulltext when equations, tables, or section-level detail are needed. That's a genuine exclusion for the most confusable sibling. Other siblings (arxiv_search, fetch_pdf, fetch_page) aren't addressed, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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