Search Arxiv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does valuable work by stating the server-wide rate limit of 3 requests/second and that results come back ordered by relevance. It omits other behavioral context such as authentication requirements or pagination vs. the max_results cap.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a short mechanism note and a clearly labeled rate-limit warning. Three tight sentences, though the middle sentence about querying the arXiv API is largely redundant with the purpose sentence.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and the 100% schema coverage covers all parameters. The only meaningful omission for a read-only search tool with no annotations is the lack of any permissions/auth note, which is minor here.

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%, so all five parameters (query, category, date_from, date_to, max_results) are already documented with examples and formats in the schema. The description only restates the filter dimensions and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (arXiv papers) plus the filtering dimensions (keyword, category, date range), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_author_papers or get_related_papers, which also return papers; the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative paper-retrieval tools. The agent must infer from the purpose alone that this is for keyword/topic discovery rather than author or citation-graph lookups.

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