zotero_search_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it discloses the most surprising behaviors: the automatic fallback to simplified queries and then semantic search, the counterintuitive narrowing of results as words are added, the ZOTERO_SEARCH_BACKEND=sqlite environment prerequisite, and per-library labelling of results. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure 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 long but front-loaded: core behavior, the IMPORTANT short-query warning, sibling routing, and the fallback cascade all appear before the parameter glossary. Nearly every sentence earns its place, with only minor redundancy (the fallback cascade is mentioned twice) and a parameter list that partly restates an already-rich schema.

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 a fallback cascade, a backend prerequisite, and 36 siblings, the description is remarkably complete: it covers fallback behavior, parameter exclusions (collection_key vs search_all_libraries), subcollection semantics, and the closest sibling alternatives. Minor gaps remain — zotero_advanced_search is never mentioned as an alternative, and sorting/pagination are left to the output schema — but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 3 baseline applies, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: what qmode values actually match ('everything' also searches abstract), that item_type '-attachment' excludes attachments, that tag conditions are ANDed, that collection_key is an 8-char key, and that search_all_libraries requires the sqlite backend. The schema already explains most parameters well, so this is meaningful enrichment rather than rescue.

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 Zotero items by substring match against metadata' — and specifies the target fields (title, creators, year, abstract) and return format (metadata + abstracts as markdown). It also explicitly names sibling tools it is not ('For topic discovery, use zotero_semantic_search instead; for tag filtering use zotero_search_by_tag'), making the tool's identity unambiguous among 36 siblings.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: keep queries SHORT and SIMPLE, use 'Author Year' (e.g. 'Brewer 2011') or a bare author name, because substring matching narrows with each added word. It names alternatives with their selection conditions and provides situation-specific advice such as 'use it when you don't know which library holds the item' for search_all_libraries and 'bypasses the fallback cascade' for collection_key.

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