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

Annotations already declare non-idempotent, non-readonly, open-world behavior, and the description reinforces this with the concrete consequence 'Importing twice adds the sources twice' plus a timeout/retry protocol. It also promises the return value (new source ids). Auth/permission requirements are not covered, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return value and the critical non-idempotency warning. The trailing 'POST /research/import' is low-value API trivia but negligible overhead.

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 usefully states the return (new source ids) and covers the main hazard (duplicate imports on retry). For a 3-param mutation tool this is nearly complete; only auth/permission context is absent.

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 defines jobid, urls, and report defaults. The description paraphrases 'all, or the urls you pick' and the Deep Research report case without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (add/import) and resource (sources a completed research job found, plus a Deep Research report). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like notebook_add_sources, notebook_upload_source, and notebook_research, since it consumes the output of a completed job.

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?

Scopes usage to 'a completed research job' and gives a concrete operational rule (check notebook_get_notebook on timeout before retrying). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as notebook_add_sources or notebook_upload_source for manually adding sources.

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