search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: it explains pagination behavior, the optional profile-ranking mode, the exact response shape, and precisely how items differ with and without profile_slug. This goes well beyond the input schema and gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves logically through pagination, optional ranking mode, and response shape. Each sentence adds information an agent needs, with no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important runtime behavior and return-value details, including conditional fields and ranker_snapshot. Minor gaps remain, such as date filtering semantics and how multiple search parameters combine, but the tool is callable with reasonable confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for query, title, author, category, cursor, and profile_slug, but it leaves date_from, date_to, time_basis, and page_size unexplained. This is meaningful but incomplete compensation for a 10-parameter tool.

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 immediately states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for arXiv papers', and enumerates the search dimensions (text, title, author, or category). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like find_related_papers or browse_recent, which imply different discovery mechanisms.

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 gives clear operational context: how to paginate with cursor, how to opt into profile-ranked results, and what to expect in each mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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