search_biorxiv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the search is limited to category-based filtering (not full-text), results are constrained to the last 30 days, and it returns paper metadata in dictionary format. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but covers the core operational constraints well.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, important behavioral note, and well-organized parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The use of sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, its limitations (category-only, last 30 days), parameter semantics, and return format. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return value structure, and it appropriately focuses on usage constraints and parameter guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic meaning for both parameters. It explains that 'query' should be a category name like 'bioinformatics' or 'neuroscience' (not arbitrary keywords), and that 'max_results' has a default of 10 and controls the maximum number of papers returned. This adds significant value 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 bioRxiv, specifying it filters by category name within the last 30 days rather than full-text keyword search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed that might have different search mechanisms or data sources.

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 states when to use this tool ('Search academic papers from bioRxiv') and provides critical exclusion guidance: 'Note: bioRxiv API filters by category name within the last 30 days, not full-text keyword search.' It also provides specific examples of valid category keywords like 'bioinformatics' and 'neuroscience' to guide proper usage.

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