search_papers

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses rate limiting and a concrete 60s backoff, states dates are inclusive submission dates in UTC, and explains that categories are ORed and restrict rather than broaden the result set — all operationally important behaviors not in the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then packed with high-value syntax, but several sentences are long run-ons (the categories sentence and the date sentence) and the syntax rules could be itemized for faster scanning rather than buried in prose.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, this covers query grammar, filtering, dates, throttling, and next-step routing well. The remaining gap is that it never indicates what a result record contains (id, title, authors, abstract) beyond implying ids exist, and sort_by behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With 83% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description substantially exceeds it by defining the query grammar (quoted phrases, ti:/au:/abs: prefixes, AND/OR/ANDNOT) and clarifying the semantics of categories as ORed-and-restricting, which the schema only labels 'Categories to include.' Only sort_by is left undiscussed.

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 and resource ('Discover arXiv papers') and scopes it to topic, author, or title, which cleanly separates it from the sibling retrieval tools (get_paper_abstract, get_paper_section, get_paper_prompt) that operate on an already-known paper.

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?

Gives clear trigger conditions (discovery by topic/author/title) and an explicit hand-off: 'Pass a returned id to get_paper_prompt to read the LaTeX source.' It does not, however, state when-not to use it or contrast against the other siblings (e.g., 'if you already have an id, use get_paper_abstract instead').

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