zotero_get_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic attachment-to-parent resolution, fallback to PDF parsing when use_pdf_extraction=True, the limit parameter's default behavior (returns all), and the potential for large result sets when called without item_key. This adds significant context beyond the input 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?

The description is a single paragraph, but it efficiently front-loads the main purpose and then details each parameter. It could benefit from bullet points for readability, but every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema (exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use each parameter, and important edge cases (no item_key, fallback). It does not explain return format, but that is handled by the output schema.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable meaning: item_key accepts both parent and attachment keys, limit=None returns all annotations, and use_pdf_extraction triggers a fallback. It also includes an example call (zotero_get_annotations(item_key='ABC12345')). This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 retrieves annotations (highlights and notes) for a specific item or across the library. It uses a specific verb 'Get annotations' and distinguishes itself from related tools like zotero_get_notes or zotero_read_pdf_pages by specifying the content type and 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the item_key parameter ('ALWAYS pass item_key when you know which item you want') and warns against calling without it (returns potentially thousands of annotations). It explains the fallback behavior of use_pdf_extraction and mentions the underlying API choice (Better BibTeX vs web API). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zotero_get_notes or zotero_search_items.

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