library_search_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and covers both Zotero and the project library, which is valuable context. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, result limits, or how the two sources are combined, though these are relatively minor for a search operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the search action and criteria. It contains no filler and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and scope.

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 description covers the essential purpose, input semantics, and the dual-source scope, while the output schema exists to define the return structure. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but for a read-only search operation with a defined output schema, the provided information is sufficient.

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 explains that 'query' accepts a title or DOI, adding meaningful semantics beyond the generic parameter name. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, though its purpose is relatively self-evident from its name and default value.

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 specific verb (search), resource (literature metadata), and identifies two concrete sources (Zotero and the project library), while specifying the search criteria (by title/DOI). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like library_get_pdf_path and library_get_fulltext, which handle different retrieval actions.

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 implies usage when metadata is needed and clarifies it is read-only, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. Given the distinct sibling functions, the intended context is fairly clear without explicit exclusions.

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