get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about returning detailed metadata and supporting BibTeX export, but it does not disclose potential open-world response behavior or errors beyond what annotations already imply.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, the use case is stated, and the BibTeX instruction is a concise, actionable detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'response_format' parameter, but the schema's clear enum values partially compensate. Overall, the description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 compensate. It clarifies 'item_key' as the identifying key and explains that format='bibtex' switches to BibTeX export, but it completely omits the 'response_format' parameter, which is one of three parameters and controls JSON vs Markdown output.

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 action ('Get detailed metadata'), the resource ('a single Zotero item by its key'), and the use case ('full bibliographic details'). It also distinguishes itself from broader search or collection tools by focusing on a single item key, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need full bibliographic details... for a specific item,' which gives clear usage context. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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