search_papers

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided, the description adds significant behavioral context: arXiv's 3-second rate limit is handled automatically, and if a rate limit error occurs, the agent should wait 60 seconds rather than retrying in a loop. It also discloses default sort behavior and the fact that results are ordered by relevance. This goes well beyond the 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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured with clear headings (QUERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES, ADVANCED SEARCH PATTERNS, CATEGORY FILTERING, EXAMPLES, DATE FILTERING, RESULT QUALITY, RATE LIMITING, TIPS). It front-loads the main purpose and each section provides actionable, non-redundant information. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a rich search domain, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers query syntax, field filters, categories, date filtering, sort options, rate limiting, and gives multiple concrete examples. It even provides tips for foundational research, ensuring the agent can effectively use all parameter combinations.

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?

Although the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description greatly enriches the query parameter with detailed query construction guidelines, field-specific syntax, examples, and category code meanings. It also clarifies date format usage and sort_by semantics, adding far more value than the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Search for papers on arXiv with advanced filtering and query optimization,' clearly identifying the specific verb (search), resource (arXiv), and advanced filtering capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_papers or semantic_search, which serve different purposes.

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 extensive usage context: when to use quoted phrases, OR, field-specific searches, category filtering, date filters, and when to choose relevance vs. date sorting. It offers clear guidance on constructing effective queries and recommends categories for relevance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative sibling tool or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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