arxiv_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for papers but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response formats, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with an output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (search function) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on usage guidelines and behavioral traits. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent decision-making, especially with no annotations.

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 must compensate, but it adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. The description doesn't explain what 'query' should contain or how 'max_results' affects the search. With two parameters and no param info in the description, this meets the baseline for minimal adequacy.

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 'Search for papers on arXiv' clearly states the action (search) and resource (papers on arXiv), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'dblp_search' by specifying the arXiv database, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'dblp_search' or any other search options, nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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