lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds a critical behavioral constraint: the citekey must be a single token without spaces, which prevents common input errors. It does not describe error handling for missing items, but the output schema likely covers return values, so the added context goes beyond 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a helpful example. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool and input constraint, the second gives a usage priority directive. No wasted words.

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 lookup tool with one parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the exact input format, and when to use it. The existence of an output schema handles return-value details, leaving no major gaps for this basic operation.

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 input schema only defines 'citekey' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that it must be an exact citekey, a single token with no spaces, and provides a concrete example ('atz2022'), making the parameter unambiguous and actionable.

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 uses the verb 'look up' with the resource 'Zotero item' and the specific method 'by its exact citekey', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' by emphasizing the need for an exact citekey rather than fuzzy or broad search.

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 instruction 'Use this first when you know the citekey' provides a clear when-to-use directive, implying that when the citekey is unknown, other tools such as 'search' should be used. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, making the guidance clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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