zotero_search_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it comprehensively: it discloses case-insensitivity, substring matching, AND semantics, whitespace/empty-word handling, return of key and parent, include_trashed behavior with default, performance O(n), and internal pagination. This exceeds typical transparency expectations.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose first, then matching rules, edge cases, parameter semantics, performance, and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient despite its length.

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?

Given the complexity of the matching logic and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return structure), the description covers all necessary operational details: matching rules, whitespace handling, trash behavior, performance, and an example. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 must explain both parameters. It does: 'query' is the search string with matching rules (case-insensitive substring, multi-word AND), and 'include_trashed' is explained with its True/False behavior and default. The example also demonstrates usage. Fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search collections by name in the active library and return their 8-character keys.' This clearly distinguishes it from other search tools (e.g., zotero_search_items) and states the exact output. The example further anchors the purpose.

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 provides detailed behavioral semantics (case-insensitive substring, AND across words, whitespace handling) that effectively tell an agent when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it. The context is clear enough to infer appropriate usage, though a direct comparison would elevate it.

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