Search across annotations in the library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it searches highlights and comments, uses substring matching, and returns a Markdown list with annotation keys and attachments. This goes beyond raw annotations without over-explaining.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only search tool, the description fully covers scope, parameters, return format, and matching behavior. The presence of an output schema and the read-only annotations further reduce the need for additional detail.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains both parameters: query is the substring to find, and limit caps the result count at 1-100. This completely compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Search the text of highlights and comments') and a clear resource scope ('across the whole library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zotero_search or zotero_get_annotations. It is precise about what content is searched and where.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: for substring-based searching of annotation text globally across the library. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'whole library' scope provides enough context to differentiate it from item-scoped annotation retrieval.

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