zotero_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-style search operation but does not clarify whether the search covers metadata only, whether full text is included, what item types are searched, or whether any authentication or local Zotero instance is required. This is a meaningful gap given sibling tools like zotero_get_fulltext.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. No extraneous words or redundant schema details are present.

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 tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits important scoping details such as whether it searches the default library only versus group libraries, and how it differs from search_personal_library or search_group_library. The absence of an output schema and annotations raises the need for a bit more context than provided.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that query is a keyword, but it does not add details about limit behavior or query formatting beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('Zotero library'), and the method ('by keyword'). It is distinct from semantic search in intent, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like zotero_semantic_search or search_personal_library.

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 'by keyword' implies this is the right tool for keyword-based lookups rather than semantic search, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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