zotero_fulltext_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses scope (full text of PDFs and notes), what is excluded (metadata), and the return concept (parent references). However, it omits details like case sensitivity, indexing availability, ordering, or whether results are capped beyond the schema's default limit.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, and the second adds a practical use case. It is compact and immediately useful.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential return concept ('parent references') and a clear use-case trigger. It does not specify the exact return shape, but an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces that 'query' is a phrase searched inside full text, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('full text of PDFs and notes'), and explicitly contrasts itself with metadata-only search ('not just metadata'). It also states what is returned ('parent references'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like zotero_search.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks which of their papers discuss or mention something.' This provides clear context for when to select the tool, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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