Get Annotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — item_key must be the parent item, not the attachment — which prevents a common misuse. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination or how the 100-item limit interacts with 'all'.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args block. The Args restate schema fields but add the parent-item clarification, so the structure earns its space. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the two library-scoping parameters are undocumented, and the description doesn't say how the result is scoped or paginated when limit is hit — a gap an agent invoking across user vs group libraries would care about.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies the required item_key (parent item, not attachment) and documents limit with its default, but leaves library_id and library_type entirely unexplained in both schema and prose. Two of four parameters are undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List all highlights and annotations on a paper's PDF.' This is clearly a read operation and implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings create_annotation, update_annotation, and delete_annotation. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative to route between (e.g. list_notes), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent must infer from context that this is the read path for annotations, versus list_notes or list_attachments for adjacent resources, but nothing steers that choice.

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