Extract Arxiv Id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely useful behavioral trait: a server-wide rate limit of 3 requests/second. It also signals robustness across 'various arXiv URL formats'. It stops short of describing error behavior for malformed or non-arXiv URLs, which is the main remaining gap.

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 lines, front-loaded with purpose, followed by format scope and the rate-limit constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter deterministic utility, the description covers purpose, accepted input formats, and the operational rate limit — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('An arXiv URL in any format'), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description's note about 'various arXiv URL formats' reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (extract) and resource (arXiv ID from an arXiv URL) and clarifies it handles 'various arXiv URL formats'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_arxiv or convert_arxiv_to_markdown, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the inverse utility build_arxiv_urls.

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 implied by the purpose: call it when you have an arXiv URL and need the paper ID. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance about routing versus sibling tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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