search_papers

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

There are no annotations to fall back on, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention pagination, result format, rate limits, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a minimal disclosure leaving the agent without knowledge of what to expect from the call.

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 a single sentence that states the core function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool and the information is front-loaded in the opening phrase.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete: it identifies the domain (arXiv) and the action. The schema already covers parameter details and there is an output schema, so the description need not elaborate on return values. However, it could improve by noting the distinction from saved-paper search, but that is a usage guideline gap rather than a completeness gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (`query` and `max_results`), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters; it does not, for example, explain how to structure a good query or what the default result count implies.

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 a specific resource ('academic papers on arXiv'). It clearly identifies the domain (arXiv) and distinguishes from sibling tools that search saved papers or perform other actions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like `search_saved_papers`, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent receives no indication of the appropriate context for choosing this tool.

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