search_arxiv_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it mentions automatic retry/error recovery, pagination support for large results, and being based on the arXiv official API. It also notes the email parameter improves API service. However, it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential costs.

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 well-structured with clear sections (功能说明, 参数说明, etc.), but is quite lengthy with redundant information. The '返回值说明' section duplicates what the output schema would provide, and some technical details could be more concise. However, information is reasonably front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context. It covers parameters thoroughly, explains behavioral characteristics, and lists use cases. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools, but overall it's quite complete for a search 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 must compensate. The '参数说明' section provides meaningful details for all 5 parameters: clarifies required vs optional status, explains keyword supports complex query syntax, specifies date formats, and documents default values and limits for max_results. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches arXiv's preprint database using the official API, specifying the resource (arXiv papers) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_europe_pmc' by focusing on arXiv, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other arXiv-related tools like 'get_article_details' or 'get_similar_articles'.

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 '使用场景' section lists general use cases like preprint literature search and tracking research trends, which provides implied guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_europe_pmc' or 'get_similar_articles', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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