Search external research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully communicates that the tool has no persistence or promotion side effects, which is a key safety-relevant trait. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or external API variability, but the core side-effect profile is clearly disclosed.

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 entire description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The main purpose and the key behavioral constraint are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the external, non-persistent nature and the source scope, and the output schema exists to cover return values. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage routing relative to sibling tools, leaving an agent to infer some details from the schema and defaults. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 needed to compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not: it only names arXiv and GitHub in the tool behavior, not how 'sources', 'sort', or 'limit_per_source' behave. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no parameter-specific value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('public arXiv and GitHub sources'), and clarifies the output ('raw normalized results'). It also explicitly states 'nothing is persisted or promoted', which distinguishes it from sibling record/list tools. This is far from a tautology.

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 clearly implies the tool is for external exploration with transient results, which signals when to use it over recording or internal reporting tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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