search_arxiv

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds useful output context — that results carry no citation counts — which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about result limits, pagination or coverage of arXiv's corpus.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a usage tip, then a pointer to a sibling. Every sentence carries information and there is 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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and near-complete parameter documentation, the description needs only to add routing and output caveats, which it does. The missing piece is an explicit statement of how this differs from search_papers.

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 coverage is 83%, so parameters are largely self-documenting; the description only adds meaning to sort_by by tying 'newest' to recency-oriented browsing. It adds nothing about query syntax, year bounds or category filtering beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search arXiv directly.' The word 'directly' hints that this is arXiv-only, implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling search_papers, but that contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Gives a concrete usage tip ('Use sort_by="newest" to find the latest preprints in a category') and routes the agent to get_paper_details when citation counts are needed. It stops short of saying when this tool is preferable to the sibling search_papers, so alternatives are only partially addressed.

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