search_arxiv_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: output includes title/abstract and submit date, and it explains parameter behaviors like the mutual exclusivity of 'page' and 'start_from'. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 front-loads the purpose in two sentences, then systematically lists parameters in a clear structure. Every sentence adds value, especially given the need to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool, the description covers output format, parameter semantics, and special constraints. It lacks examples or error behavior, but the rich parameter detail and annotations make it reasonably complete.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section thoroughly documents all 10 parameters, including their meanings, defaults, formats, and mutual exclusivity. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('arxiv'), and clearly states the return value ('Return paper list with title (and abstract)'). The tool name itself distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_library_papers'.

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 gives a clear context: search arxiv for latest papers. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'arxiv', but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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