semantic_search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and closed-world hints, but the description adds critical context: it only searches the local downloaded collection, returns empty results if no downloads exist, and requires pro dependencies with an install command. This goes beyond the annotations and provides valuable behavioral expectations.

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: the first sentence states purpose, the second flags a critical limitation, and the third provides workflow and installation context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and high-quality annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, limitations, prerequisites, and usage workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 parameter descriptions already provide clear semantics. The description adds an example query and frames query vs. paper_id as alternatives, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for a covered schema without adding substantial new meaning.

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 performs semantic similarity search over papers already downloaded locally via download_paper, using specific verbs and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with search_papers (arXiv-wide search) and download_paper (fetching papers).

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: the tool only searches the local collection, returns empty if no papers are downloaded, and provides a concrete workflow (use search_papers, then download_paper). It also states the pro dependency prerequisite. This clearly explains when to use it versus alternatives.

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