get_zotero_information

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that returned information can be 'finetuned' by parameters, implying configurability, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as default behaviors or error handling.

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 moderately concise but not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states the default behavior, but the second sentence ('Good to call if...') is vague and doesn't add value. The third sentence about finetuning is useful but could be more integrated. Overall, it's front-loaded with purpose but includes a redundant phrase that reduces efficiency.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the tool's purpose and parameter finetuning but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details like authentication or errors, and doesn't fully compensate for the 33% gap in schema description coverage. It's adequate as a baseline but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 67% coverage. It explains that the tool returns 'information on the Zotero library' by default and can be 'finetuned' for 'summary, collections, recent items, tags,' clarifying the purpose of the 'properties' parameter. However, it doesn't detail the semantics of 'limit' or 'itemType' beyond what the schema provides, leaving some parameter meaning implicit.

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 the tool returns information about a Zotero library, which clarifies its purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'information' entails and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_collection_items' or 'get_items_metadata' that also retrieve library data. The phrase 'Good to call if you dont have a clear understanding yet what to ask from this tool' adds confusion rather than specificity.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, only suggesting it's 'Good to call if you dont have a clear understanding yet what to ask from this tool,' which is ambiguous and not actionable. It doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_library' or how it complements sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear usage criteria.

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