search_arxiv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter details. No wasted words, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative given the output schema exists.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral context (no annotations). The output schema exists, so describing return values isn't needed, but guidance on when to use this versus other search tools would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: query ('Search query string') with an example, and max_results with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool searches academic papers from arXiv, specifying the resource (arXiv papers) and action (search). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning arXiv specifically, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search_* tools in the same server.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other search_* tools (search_base, search_crossref, etc.) or read_arxiv_paper. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate versus alternatives.

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