search_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description reinforces read-only status and adds valuable behavioral details: full_text searches qmode='everything' and is slower, empty full_text query raises a validation error, limit/start default to 25/0, and results contain key/version for downstream mutation tools. This goes well beyond what annotations alone disclose.

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 and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement, followed by a compact per-parameter breakdown and a final sentence explaining how to use result fields. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers all parameters, search semantics, performance trade-offs, validation errors, and downstream usage of returned keys. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all 7 parameters with rich semantic detail: query does substring matching on title/creator/year, tag means exact tag, collection_key refers to a collection, and full_text changes search mode. It also provides examples for item_type and pagination defaults.

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 'Search the Zotero library. Read-only.' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and safety profile. It enumerates filter dimensions (query, item_type, tag, collection_key), distinguishing it from narrower list tools like list_collections or get_item and from mutation tools.

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 gives clear usage context: omit query to list items, use full_text for attached file/note content with a warning that it is slower and requires a non-empty query, and references list_collections for collection keys. It does not explicitly state when to prefer search_items over alternatives like get_item or list_attachments, but the parameter guidance and general purpose make the intended use clear.

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