Build Arxiv Urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a server-wide rate limit of 3 requests/second, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it omits what happens on an invalid or non-existent ID and whether the call is a pure local string build or a network operation (the rate limit implies the latter, which is mildly confusing).

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the rate limit isolated as its own labeled line. The opening two sentences restate the same fact ('build URLs from a paper ID' / 'given an arXiv ID, generates URL formats'), which is mild redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and fully documented parameter, the description covers purpose and the notable rate-limit constraint. The only real gap is failure behavior for malformed IDs, which is minor given the simplicity.

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% and the schema supplies the format example ('1706.03762'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the generic notion of a paper ID, no syntax or accepted-format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build various arXiv URLs from a paper ID') and the second sentence clarifies the output is all common URL formats. The resource is distinct from every sibling (extract_arxiv_id, convert_arxiv_to_markdown, search_arxiv, etc.), though the description never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this when it holds an arXiv ID and needs URLs. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as extract_arxiv_id if the ID is embedded in a string.

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