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. It discloses return fields, search scope (notes and full-text via qmode), and trash inclusion behavior. It stops short of mentioning performance implications or pagination details, but for a read-only search tool this is solid coverage.

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 a concise bulleted list, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every bullet adds actionable guidance without fluff. It is well-structured and easily scannable for an 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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key usage patterns and return shape. It omits some details like pagination defaults, but those are in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke this tool effectively.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing how to combine parameters (e.g., itemType='note' with includeChildren=true) and clarifies the purpose of qmode=everything for full-text search. This practical guidance earns a 4.

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?

Clearly states it searches items in the Zotero library, with a specific verb and resource. The description goes beyond a generic statement by listing example use cases, which further distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_items or get_collection_items.

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?

Provides concrete 'how to use' instructions for several parameter combinations (e.g., qmode=everything for full-text, itemType=note with includeChildren=true for notes). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context of when to use each mode is clear enough.

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