search_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context: returns condensed metadata, excludes attachments/notes, and points to an alternative. However, it doesn't elaborate on other potential behaviors like rate limits or authentication, though such info may not be critical for a search tool. The provided details go beyond the schema and are genuinely useful.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and crucial exclusions/alternatives in the second. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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 moderate complexity, the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions, and an output schema exists (so return format need not be explained). The description covers the key remaining aspects: purpose, exclusions, and an explicit alternative. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., tag boolean syntax, qmode enum, item_type filtering). It only mentions 'query' generically, which adds no semantic value beyond the schema's own description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Zotero library for items matching a query.' It further clarifies the scope by noting that results are 'condensed metadata' and that 'attachments and notes are excluded,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_item_children which retrieve attachments/notes.

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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'use get_item_children to see an item's PDFs and notes.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead, satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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