notebooklm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the tool's diagnostic nature and providing actionable troubleshooting steps. It doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or error conditions, but gives practical context about authentication issues and recovery workflows.

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?

Perfectly structured with two focused paragraphs: first states purpose and primary use case, second provides troubleshooting guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 0-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned and when to use it. The troubleshooting guidance adds significant value. Minor gap: doesn't specify response format or error handling.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline would be 3. However, the description adds value by explaining what health information is returned (authentication state, active sessions, configuration), which compensates for the lack of output schema documentation.

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 ('server health status'), listing key components (authentication state, active sessions, configuration). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system diagnostics rather than content manipulation or authentication workflows.

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 states when to use ('verify the server is ready before starting research workflows') and provides detailed troubleshooting guidance for specific scenarios ('If authenticated=false and having persistent issues'). Names alternative tools (cleanup_data, setup_auth) for problem resolution.

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