query_arxiv

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect: results are written to a CSV file at the given file path. However, it does not mention overwriting behavior, rate limits, or any other side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The core action ('Search arXiv papers') is front-loaded, followed by the critical output behavior. 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the output side effect. However, it omits any clarification about the tool's return value, whether the tool creates or overwrites the file, and any limits or edge cases. These are gaps for a tool that writes files, so the description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by specifying that the query targets 'arXiv papers' and that the output is CSV, but this is already partially implied by the schema and tool name. It does not significantly compensate for the undocumented sort_by parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('arXiv papers'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling query tools focused on financial instruments. An agent can tell this targets academic literature without opening the schema.

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 implied usage: it is meant for searching arXiv papers, inferred from the tool name and first sentence. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other query tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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