search_preprints

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that results are relevance-ranked, free, and returns a structured list (doi, title, abstract, date). However, it doesn't mention possible empty results or error handling, but the output format is well-described.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and essential information front-loaded: purpose, features (relevance, free), output format, and sibling relationship.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the return structure sufficiently. It addresses integration with the sibling tool. It lacks details on pagination or error cases, but for a simple search tool, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description explains that 'query' is a keyword, and the 'limit' parameter is implied with a default of 20. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully elaborate on their behavior or constraints.

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 searches bioRxiv/medRxiv preprints by keyword, mentions relevance-ranking and free access, and distinguishes from the sibling fetch_fulltext by advising to use the DOI with that tool.

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?

It explicitly says when to use (by keyword) and provides a link to the sibling tool for full-text retrieval, giving clear guidance on tool choice with no ambiguity.

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