search_academic

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior MAP. The description adds the useful fact that no API key is required # and clarifies the output fields. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, pagination, or that results are limited to arXiv only, which would be additional transparency value.

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 two concise sentences. The first immediately states the tool's purpose and scope; the second lists the output fields and notes no API key is needed. Information is front-loaded and there is no extraneous text.

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 presence of an output schema and a simple search use case, the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched, what is returned, and that no key is required. It does not detail search operators or pagination, but for a straightforward query on arxiv, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to make a reasonable call.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50% (only 'query' has a description, max_results does not), the description fails to compensate. It does not explain query syntax or the behavior of max_results beyond what the schema implicitly provides (a bounded default integer). This leaves the agent under-informed about parameter usage.

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 resource (arXiv), the action (search), and the scope (academic preprints across all fields). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_web or search_news, and the inclusion of return fields (title, authors, abstract, PDF URL) 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 implies usage for academic literature but does not explicitly compare against alternatives like search_scholar_meta or mention when not to use this tool. No guidance on query formatting or result limits is provided, so an agent would need to rely on external knowledge.

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