Search specific Zotero fields

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: non-item_type/tag filters are applied client-side after a broad server-side query, and the return format is specified as a Markdown list. However, it does not clarify how limit interacts with the client-side filtering, which is a notable behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a concise architecture note and a tidy parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure allows quick scanning for both purpose and parameter semantics.

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 tool with no required params, the description covers all parameter meanings and return format. But it leaves ambiguities that matter for correct invocation: how multiple filters combine, what happens with no filters, and whether limit applies before or after client-side filtering. These gaps could lead to incorrect usage.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics. The Args list provides clear definitions for all 8 parameters, including substring matching behavior, year ranges, and the 1-100 limit constraint. This fully compensates for the bare 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 opening line 'Search by individual metadata fields and filter by publication year' states a specific verb and resource, and the field list distinguishes it from the generic sibling zotero_search. The title 'Search specific Zotero fields' reinforces this precise scope, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for field-specific searching and mentions transport compatibility, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over zotero_search or other siblings. It gives no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the intended context from the field-level detail.

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