Search Zotero Items

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'READ-ONLY', consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: default query mode, the effect of query_mode='everything', combination of filters, collection restriction, trashed items behavior, response_format options, and error handling (e.g., 'Error: Permission denied (403)'). This gives the agent a rich understanding of what to expect.

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 clear sections (overview, args, examples, error handling) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it repeats parameter details already in the schema, each sentence serves a purpose (usage guidance or behavioral notes). It is slightly long but not wasteful.

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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what it searches, how to filter, what it returns (type, creators, year, title, DOI/URL, tags, trimmed abstract), and error conditions. It also provides examples and distinguishes from sibling tools. This is a complete standalone description.

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 baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely mirrors schema descriptions, but it adds value by showing how parameters combine (e.g., 'Combine with item_type and/or tag filters to narrow results') and giving concrete examples for query, item_type, and tag. It also clarifies the default for query_mode and response_format, which the schema already states, but the cohesive usage guidance justifies a 4.

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 for bibliographic items (articles, books, webpages, etc.) in a Zotero library.' It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying 'Don't use when: you need items from a specific known key (use zotero_get_item instead).' This is a clear, unambiguous purpose with sibling distinction.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' guidance with concrete examples, such as 'find items about resistencia cotidiana' and 'list all journal articles tagged putumayo'. It also names the alternative tool (zotero_get_item) for the excluded case, giving the agent clear decision rules.

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