Get arXiv paper metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds little behaviorally: nothing about what happens with an invalid ID in a batch, whether partial results are returned, rate limits, or whether the abstract can be absent for withdrawn papers.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the input formats that actually matter. No filler and nothing buried at the end.

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 read tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly, and the format enumeration removes the main failure mode. It would be complete at 5 with a short note on batch error/partial-result behavior and roughly what metadata is returned.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns an upgrade by enumerating concrete accepted identifier forms (new-style, versioned, arXiv:-prefixed, old-style hep-th/9901001, and abs/pdf/html URLs) that the schema's generic 'identifiers or URLs' does not spell out. Only the batch cap is left to the schema's maxItems.

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 and resource ('Fetch metadata and abstract for ... arXiv papers by ID') and supports batch retrieval ('one or more'), which implicitly separates it from arxiv_get_full_text and arxiv_search. It does not name a sibling outright, so differentiation is inferable rather than 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?

Usage is implied: this is the lookup path when you already hold identifiers, as opposed to search-based discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named, so an agent must infer that arxiv_search precedes this for unknown papers.

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