search_arxiv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the API source and cost, but omits critical details such as rate limits, query syntax specifics (e.g., boolean operators), or how failures are handled. The description is minimal and does not adequately inform about potential constraints.

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 very concise, consisting of only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose. While extremely brief, it is not overly verbose and contains only relevant information. The slight trailing whitespace is minor.

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 that an output schema exists (even though not shown in detail here), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and moderate complexity, the description fails to mention important context like pagination, result format, or error conditions. It is minimally complete.

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, meaning the schema already explains all parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action (search) and resource (arXiv academic papers), specifying the disciplines covered (physics, math, computer science, economics). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which are mostly info retrieval tools unrelated to scholarly search.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_books. It mentions the data source and that it is free, but provides no decision rules or exclusions. Users are left to infer usage from the tool name.

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