zotero_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety and behavior. 'Search' and 'Returns a ranked list' strongly imply a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also adds the useful detail that results include 'the item key needed by the other tools,' which helps an agent plan downstream calls. It omits pagination and source-fallback behavior, but these are low-risk for a search tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the return payload and usage guidance. There is no filler, tautology, or repetition; every sentence contributes decision-relevant information.

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 a broad search tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main decision an agent faces: when to call it ('Use this first') and what it returns. The main gap is the missing explicit guidance on when to use zotero_fulltext_search instead, but the schema's full parameter coverage compensates for most omitted details.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well described. The description's list of searchable fields (keyword, author, tag, item type, year, collection) largely restates the schema's parameter names and adds little new semantic value beyond confirming what the tool can filter by.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Search the user's Zotero library') and lists the search dimensions: keyword, author, tag, item type, year, and collection. It also describes the return value, including the item key. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling zotero_fulltext_search, especially since this tool's 'everything' mode also searches PDF full text.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first for any question about what is in the user's library or to find a paper they have saved.' This gives a clear entry-point role among the sibling tools, but it does not state when to prefer alternatives like zotero_fulltext_search, zotero_recent, or zotero_collections.

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