arXiv Search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds value by detailing the return format (title, authors, date, abstract, pdf_url) and the absence of API key requirement. No contradictions with 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 is concise and well-structured: a brief sentence explaining the tool, followed by Args, Returns, and an Example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The example provided is specific and helpful.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. It covers all parameters, the search behavior, and the usage of results. The tool is simple with three parameters, and the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with an example and clarifies the format of the query (e.g., 'mixture of experts quantization') and sorting options. It also provides practical context like the default values and a usage example, making the parameters more understandable.

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's purpose: 'Search arXiv for scientific papers (no API key).' It specifies the resource (arXiv papers) and the action (search), and distinguishes from sibling tools like web_search and wikipedia_lookup. The mention of reading papers via download_file and read_file further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly notes that no API key is required, which is a key usage condition. It also provides a workflow for reading papers: use download_file and read_file. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the sibling list provides context for alternatives.

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