search_arxiv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'perfect for finding research papers' and lists use cases, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary repetition. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples more tightly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details (e.g., return format, error cases). For a search tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency that reduce completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax further or provide examples of tbs values). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 academic papers and preprints on arXiv repository, specifying the resource (arXiv repository) and verb (search). It distinguishes from siblings like search_web, search_images, and search_ssrn by focusing specifically on academic/scientific content, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'when researching scientific topics, looking for papers by specific authors, or finding the latest research in fields like AI, physics, mathematics, computer science, etc.' It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., parallel_search_arxiv), but the context is sufficiently detailed for informed usage.

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