zotero_search_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the substring-matching narrowing behavior, the automatic fallback cascade to simplified queries and semantic search, the backend requirement for search_all_libraries, and the fact that collection_key bypasses the fallback. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a realistic model of tool behavior.

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 deliberately structured and information-dense. The key behavioral warning about substring matching is front-loaded, followed by tool routing, then a compact parameter walkthrough and examples. Every major point earns its place, though the parameter-by-parameter recap does create some overlap with the input schema.

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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with a fallback mechanism and cross-library mode, the description explains all relevant invocation concerns, including constraints, defaults, exclusions, and example calls. The presence of an output schema means the return format does not need to be detailed here, and nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare parameter names: query is a substring, extra words narrow results, qmode controls which fields are searched, item_type defaults to excluding attachments, tag conditions are ANDed, and collection_key has special fallback-bypassing behavior. This is far more than the schema alone provides.

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 verb and resource ('Search Zotero items by substring match against metadata'), defines the scope of the match (title, creators, year, abstract), and describes the return format. It also clearly differentiates itself from zotero_semantic_search and zotero_search_by_tag, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use alternatives: 'For topic discovery, use zotero_semantic_search instead; for tag filtering use zotero_search_by_tag.' It also gives practical guidance on query construction, when to use search_all_libraries, and the sqlite backend prerequisite. This is actionable routing guidance, not just implied context.

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