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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 5-40s latency budget and the readiness precondition that gates the call. It stops short of describing cost, quota, or failure modes beyond the 'no source ready' case, so it is strong but not maximal.

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?

Dense but zero waste: return shape, latency, precondition, configuration sibling, and alternative sibling are all front-loaded in a few clauses. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (answer plus numbered citations with source ids, plus a conversation id) and pairs it with latency, preconditions, and routing to alternatives. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the semantics of 'sources' (every ready one by default, or the given ids) and 'conversation' (pass the returned id back for a follow-up), but adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: asking a question answered from the notebook's sources. It names two siblings (notebook_set_chat_settings, notebook_search_sources) and delineates its scope as answer-generation versus raw passages, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use notebook_search_sources for raw passages without an answer, and configure behavior via notebook_set_chat_settings. It also states the precondition ('refused while no source is ready') so the agent knows when the call will fail.

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