search_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, but provides no information about pagination, sorting behavior, result limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool with 4 parameters.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is zero wordiness or irrelevant information, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the search returns, how pagination works, or any nuances about sorting. The agent would lack critical context for effectively using this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline score of 3. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('arXiv academic papers'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. Since there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the lack of explicit distinction is not a significant fault, but the description is minimal and could be more specific about what it returns.

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 usage is implied: this tool searches arXiv for papers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or any mention of alternatives. The context is clear but not elaborated, so it earns a mid-range score.

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