notebooklm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the method (e.g., finds note by title, attempts native conversion, falls back to extraction), which adds useful behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by method details and usage guidelines. It uses four sentences efficiently, with minimal redundancy. However, the method section could be slightly condensed for optimal conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or side effects (e.g., what happens to the original note). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 parameters (note_title, notebook_url, session_id) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Convert a note to a source document in NotebookLM.' It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('note to source'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'add_source', which would require a 5.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this when you want your note content to be included in NotebookLM's knowledge base for answering questions.' This gives a specific use case. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'add_source' for new sources), so it falls short of a 5.

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