NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds some context about the search scope (name, description, topics, tags) and a suggested workflow, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, auth needs, or result format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the search functionality and usage suggestion. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated. Overall, it avoids waste but isn't perfectly structured for maximum clarity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the search scope and a usage hint, but lacks details on result format, pagination, or error handling, which could aid the agent in interpreting outcomes. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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%, with the 'query' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by listing searchable fields (name, description, topics, tags), but this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's 'Search query' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as searching a library by query across multiple fields (name, description, topics, tags), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_notebooks' or 'get_notebook'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_notebooks' in terms of filtering scope or output format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Use to propose relevant notebooks for the task and then ask which to use', which suggests a workflow context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'list_notebooks' or 'get_notebook'), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it only moderately helpful.

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