Search Fulltext

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description adds the scope of search (metadata + full text). However, it does not disclose potential costs, result ordering, or any limitations beyond what annotations and output schema already convey.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively captures the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place.

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 (2 parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by adding usage guidance or clarifying 'qmode=everything', but the core functionality is clear.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The mention of 'qmode=everything' is not a parameter in the schema and may confuse. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 searches both Zotero metadata and indexed full text, with a specific verb (search) and resource (Zotero metadata + full text). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_library (likely metadata-only) and get_item_fulltext (retrieves full text for an item).

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 implies use when you need full-text search across both metadata and full text, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like search_library or plain search. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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