NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the sync parameter's impact on data accuracy, mentions browser automation requirements, describes query count reset timing, and provides detailed tier-based quota limits. While annotations cover read-only/idempotent aspects, the description enriches understanding of real-world behavior without contradicting 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 well-structured with clear sections (Returns, Quota Limits, Usage notes) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the quota limits into the returns section, but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and lack of output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It details return values, tier-specific limits, parameter behavior implications, and timing considerations. This compensates fully for the missing output schema and aligns well with the structured annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context about the sync parameter's implications ('fetch actual quota from Google's UI', 'locally tracked counts may differ'). It doesn't just repeat the schema but explains the practical consequences of the parameter choice.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current quota status'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on quota retrieval rather than notebook/source management or query execution. It explicitly lists what information is returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use sync=true vs. false, explaining the trade-offs between accuracy and browser automation requirements. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on quota status rather than operations like adding notebooks or executing queries, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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