Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by indicating the search scope ('over Zotero items and full text'), but does not disclose return formats, pagination, or any limitations beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and stays appropriately minimal for a simple search tool.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description covers the basic scope and safety. However, it lacks any guidance on how this search relates to sibling search tools, and the vague 'company-knowledge compatible' qualifier is not defined. The output schema may mitigate return value ambiguity, but overall completeness is average.

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 schema has one required parameter 'query' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or elaborate on the query parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on query syntax, expected format, or interpretation. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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') and a clear resource scope ('Zotero items and full text'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this generic 'search' from sibling tools like 'search_library' or 'search_fulltext', which would require explicit differentiators.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_library, search_fulltext, fetch). There are no stated alternatives, exclusions, or contextual cues except the vague phrase 'company-knowledge compatible', which is unexplained.

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