zotero_search_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it searches all annotations and comments across all papers, returns highlighted text, comments, page numbers, and parent paper context. It does not detail ordering or pagination, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by return details and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and the search scope. It lacks mention of result ordering or maximum results, but overall it sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It describes 'query' as a keyword, which is helpful, but neither 'limit' (default 50) is mentioned nor its purpose explained. The description adds no value beyond what the schema property names imply.

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 annotations across the entire library by keyword, specifying the types (PDF, EPUB, snapshot) and including your comments. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zotero_search_items by focusing on annotations and comments rather than item metadata.

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 explicitly lists use cases: cross-paper knowledge synthesis, finding where a concept was discussed, building thematic connections. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or compare to siblings, the use cases provide clear guidance for appropriate scenarios.

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