arxiv_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns metadata and links, and that full text is not returned but belongs to arxiv_get. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read/search tool the key behavioral boundary is well communicated.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action, target, and search dimensions; the second lists return fields and routes full-text retrieval to arxiv_get. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the important return fields and links. Required parameters and pagination are already documented in the input schema, and the arxiv_get handoff completes the workflow. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of keywords, author, and category adds conceptual framing, but the schema already documents query prefixes, limit defaults, start offset, and sort options. The description does not add significant value beyond the structured schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('arXiv preprints') and further specifies search dimensions: keywords, author, or category. It also states the output fields, making it immediately distinguishable from arxiv_get, which is called out for full-text retrieval.

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 explicitly routes full-text retrieval to arxiv_get, which clarifies when arxiv_search should be used versus its sibling arxiv_get. It does not provide explicit exclusions or compare with other sibling search tools, but the workflow guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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