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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get statistics about your notebook library') and adds clarifying examples ('total notebooks, usage, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or output format, which are important even for simple tools. With no annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it's minimally viable.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds value by hinting at what statistics are included ('total notebooks, usage, etc.'). This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics about your notebook library'), and provides examples of what statistics are included ('total notebooks, usage, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_notebook' or 'list_notebooks' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual items or lists. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible statistical tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_health' or 'list_notebooks' that might provide overlapping or complementary information. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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