search_zim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral nuance that an omitted zim_id silently restricts search to the subset of Zims with 'search by default' enabled, and that limit is applied per Zim when multiple are searched. It does not mention ranking, result ordering across Zims, or rate limits, so it stops short of full 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 key scoping rule about default Zims is front-loaded in the second sentence, before the arg list, which is the right ordering. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema titles but each entry adds at least a small semantic increment, so little is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly points to get_zim_entry for reading results. Combined with the default-Zim and per-Zim-limit notes, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though result ordering or multi-Zim aggregation behavior is unaddressed.

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 carry the load, and it does document all four parameters with meaning beyond the bare titles: zim_id's default-vs-specific behavior, limit as per-Zim when several are searched, and offset as pagination. Only 'query' is left at a trivial restatement with no mention of search syntax or matching behavior.

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 ('Search the Zim encyclopedias') and immediately scopes it with concrete examples (Wikipedia, Wiktionary). It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like search_files or search_places, and it names the downstream tool (get_zim_entry) for consuming results.

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?

Gives an explicit when-branch: omit zim_id to search Zims with 'search by default' enabled, or pass one to target a specific Zim, with list_zim_files named as the source of that ID. It does not explicitly exclude any sibling search tool, so an agent still has to infer this is the encyclopedia-search niche rather than general file search, but the context is clear.

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