Search Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the fallback to fuzzy matching when exact search fails, and the pagination mechanism via start offset and footer. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states what it does, the second adds fallback behavior, and the Args block is concise and informative. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, fallback behavior, parameter semantics, and pagination. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' block that thoroughly explains each parameter. It clarifies that query searches titles, authors, tags, etc., that limit has a max of 100, and that start should use the footer value for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Search your Zotero library.' It also lists what fields are searched (titles, authors, tags, etc.), which hints at distinguishing from fulltext search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives. Thus it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives implied usage: it is a general library search tool. It provides behavior about fuzzy fallback and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_fulltext or search. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is only implicit.

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