search_arxiv_papers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that an empty result is a normal outcome, not an error. However, it adds little about other behaviors such as result ordering, matching semantics, rate limits, or external API behavior, beyond what is essentially implied by a 'Search' operation.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning their place: the first states the operation and optional filters, the second gives pipeline guidance, and the third normalizes an empty result. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are covered. The missing context is input format guidance for categories and since_date and the behavior of max_results. The description is adequate for a basic search call but not fully self-sufficient for an agent invoking an external API it has no prior knowledge about.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'query' to topic, 'categories' to category restrictions, and 'since_date' to a minimum submission date. However, it does not explain expected formats for categories or since_date, and 'max_results' is never addressed, even though its name and default make its role partially inferable.

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: 'Search arXiv for papers on a topic.' It also names the optional scope (categories, minimum submission date) and differentiates from the sibling by framing this as the discovery step before score_paper_relevance.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use this to find candidate papers before evaluating them individually with score_paper_relevance.' This gives a clear pipeline context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to the other sibling, find_foundational_citations, so it stops short of a 5.

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