Search Library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that results are paged, that the search applies to the active library, and that each result contains a key, author, year, and abstract preview. It does not cover pagination mechanics, but the schema already documents the cursor parameter.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the primary action and result shape, the second explains how the result connects to get_item. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The description, combined with the fully documented schema, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool and understand the basic output. It explains the output fields, active-library scope, and follow-up path, though sort order and semantic-search alternatives are not discussed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond general search and paging behavior, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: search the active Zotero library and return matching items. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling semantic_search tool.

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 implies a search-then-fetch workflow by telling the caller to pass the returned item key to get_item. However, it does not state when to prefer this over semantic_search or other listing tools, nor does it provide explicit exclusions.

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