search_arxiv

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action but omits important details like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it returns paper metadata or full text. For a tool querying an external API, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity. However, it could benefit from a slight restructure to separate purpose and usage.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover return format, behavior when no results, or how parameters interact. More detail on parameter usage and output would improve completeness.

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 lists 'query, categories, keywords, and date range' but does not explain format or constraints. For example, 'from_date' and 'to_date' are strings but no date format is specified; 'categories' and 'keywords' arrays lack guidance on valid values. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('search') and resource ('arXiv for quantum-computing papers'). It mentions key filtering dimensions (query, categories, keywords, date range). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_paper_memory', which might also search for papers but likely in a different scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'search_paper_memory' for searching internal memory vs. external arXiv. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., API access) or when not to use it.

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