Arxiv Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses the retry policy (3 attempts, 15s apart on transient timeouts) and the important failure mode where an HTTP 429 pauses the domain for all agents and returns immediately. It does not state read-only semantics or the effect of hitting max_results bounds, but the operational behavior an agent needs to avoid hammering the API is present.

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 the core action and scope, then dense operational caveats in the following sentences. The enumeration of returned fields is partly redundant given an output schema exists, but the derived PDF URL rule is genuinely additive.

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?

The output schema means return fields need not be spelled out, and the retry/rate-limit disclosure covers the main operational risk. What's missing is query syntax, ordering, and any cap on max_results — the gaps an agent could actually trip over when invoking this two-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate; it only partially does with '(all fields)', which hints that the query string is a general search but gives no arXiv query-syntax guidance (author/field prefixes, boolean operators). 'max_results' is never mentioned, though its name and default of 5 make it largely self-evident.

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 and resource ('Search arXiv (all fields) via the official API'), and the 'all fields' phrasing tells the agent this is a broad query rather than a title-only lookup. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like scholar_search or alphaxiv_lookup that also cover academic literature.

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 arXiv-specific scope implies when to reach for this tool (you want arXiv preprints), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as scholar_search for non-arXiv or cross-publisher coverage. Usage is left to be inferred from the resource name.

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