search_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the conditional behavior based on 'query' presence, default sorting, and that it replaces get_recent. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or return format, but the examples and tone imply a safe read operation. This is enough to be useful without being verbose.

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 with a concise main sentence, a conditional explanation, and multiple examples. Every sentence serves a purpose: introducing purpose, explaining behavior, illustrating usage, and directing next steps. No fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent that item keys are returned and how to use them with other tools. It covers both search and list modes adequately. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit statement of result fields, no error handling info), but for this tool's complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'query' omission triggers a different mode, giving concrete examples for 'sort' and 'limit', and noting the default direction. This goes beyond the schema's field-level 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search your Zotero library or list items sorted by a field.' It distinguishes itself by mentioning it replaces the old get_recent tool, and the examples clarify the dual mode (search vs. list). This is a specific verb + resource with clear differentiation from 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?

The description explains when to use search (when 'query' is provided) and when to list (when omitted), and points to related tools for follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_collection_items, so the exclusion criteria are not fully explicit.

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