search_personal_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'search'. It does not state whether the search covers metadata, full text, or both; what ranking/pagination behavior to expect; or any auth/scope constraints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The wording is compact and direct, though it is also quite minimal in the information it conveys.

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 simple two-parameter search with a documented schema, this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no description of return format or search behavior, an agent is left guessing about what the tool actually returns and how matches are determined.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query and limit. The description adds minor context by clarifying that the query is scoped to the personal library, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 the tool searches papers in the user's personal library, making the verb and resource clear. It is somewhat distinguishable from search_group_library by the word 'personal', but it does not explicitly differentiate from zotero_search or zotero_semantic_search.

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 phrase 'in your personal library' implies this is for querying a user's own collection rather than external sources or group libraries. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the many sibling search tools, nor any exclusions.

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