search_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, potential rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The description only states what the tool does at the highest level without behavioral context.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate schema description coverage (67%), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a search tool with 6 parameters and sibling alternatives, the description should provide more context about when to use this specific search functionality versus other retrieval methods available in the server.

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 provides no parameter information whatsoever, while the schema has 67% description coverage. Since the schema already documents most parameters well (especially 'qmode', 'itemType', and 'tag' with detailed examples), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add value beyond what's in the schema, but the schema coverage is adequate for most parameters.

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 ('Search') and target resource ('Zotero library for an item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_collection_items' or 'get_items_metadata' - both of which also retrieve items from the library, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this search tool over those alternatives.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this search functionality is preferable to 'get_collection_items' or 'get_items_metadata'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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