search

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral limits beyond those annotations: uncached PDFs are not full-text searched, and query terms are matched lexically on the same page. This is valuable operational context for setting agent expectations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core scope and return value are front-loaded, and the important limitation about uncached PDFs is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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?

The description covers the search surface, return contents, and a key limitation, and an output schema exists to document return structure. However, it does not explain parameter behavior or provide guidance for choosing among siblings, leaving the definition slightly incomplete for a tool with low schema coverage.

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 compensate for the two parameters, but it does not explain query or limit semantics. The phrase 'query terms' hints at the query parameter, and limit likely controls result count, but neither is explicitly defined.

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 distinct resources: live Zotero metadata, local file names, and cached PDF/text content. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it returns IDs for fetch, snippets, and indexing coverage, which separates it from list_files, fetch, and read_page_image.

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 makes the intended use clear: search across metadata, file names, and cached content, returning IDs that could be passed to fetch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it sensibly.

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