zim_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains mode behaviors, result shapes, error conditions, pagination semantics (offset and source_consumed), promotion flags, and unsupported cursor. It even warns about silent wrong-shape results and cross_archive blocking. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 long but exceptionally well-structured with clear headings (MODES, PARAMETERS, RESPONSE, ERRORS) and is front-loaded with the critical instruction to extract search intent and pick the correct mode. Every sentence provides necessary information—no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three modes and nine parameters.

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 complexity (3 modes, 9 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers all modes, all parameters, response formats for each mode, error handling, pagination, cross_archive behavior, and even how to use results with zim_get. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing additional information.

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 must fully explain parameters. It does so in a dedicated PARAMETERS section, detailing every parameter (query, mode, zim_file_path, cross_file, namespace, content_type, limit, offset, cursor) with constraints, defaults, and mode-specific validity. It even explains how offset and page_info interact. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a ZIM archive with three distinct modes (fulltext, title, suggest), making its primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zim_query or zim_get; the name itself is the main differentiator. It is specific about the resource and action, but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode, with examples ('Use for queries with multiple keywords...', 'Use when the caller knows the article name...'), and warns that the wrong mode silently returns the wrong shape of results. It also provides aliases and clarifies mode-specific restrictions (e.g., suggest does not support cross_file). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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