Semantic / hybrid library search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the three modes ('auto', 'keyword', 'semantic'), reciprocal-rank fusion, and the requirement to build the index first. It also mentions returning snippets and scores, which is not in annotations.

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 compact (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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's complexity (hybrid search, multiple modes, reliance on index), the description covers the most important aspects: purpose, modes, prerequisites, and sibling alternatives. It could mention the snippet format more precisely, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 67% (q and limit described in schema, mode has enum but no description). The description adds meaning by explaining the role of each mode, the default for mode ('auto'), and the effect of limit. This compensates well for the missing schema description on mode.

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 tool searches by meaning, not just keywords, explains the hybrid approach combining BM25 and vector similarity, and distinguishes it from siblings like zotero_search_items (for exact filtering) and zotero_get_fulltext (for reading passages).

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?

Explicitly advises when to use ('conceptual/papers about X queries'), when not to use (exact field/tag filtering, use zotero_search_items; reading passages, use zotero_get_fulltext), and specifies the prerequisite of building the index with zotero_index.

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