Zotero Search

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with these. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the local API requirement, the return fields (title, authors, year, type, DOI, Zotero key), and the local-library scope. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the 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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. The purpose, usage context, return values, and prerequisite are all front-loaded and clearly structured. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it states the data source, the prerequisite, the return fields, and the use case. No output schema exists, so the explicit list of returned fields is valuable. Given the annotations and schema richness, no critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both query and limit have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description doesn't add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it restates that matching covers titles and authors but doesn't introduce format, syntax, or edge-case details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the work.

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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'user's local Zotero library via the Zotero desktop app's local API.' It also distinguishes this tool from broader literature searches by framing it as answering 'what do I already have on X?' before searching the wider literature, setting it apart from sibling tools like web-search and search-literature.

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 clear usage context: use this before searching the wider literature to check what the user already has. It also gives a crucial prerequisite (Zotero running with local API enabled). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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