notebooklm-mcp

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool opens a browser window, returns immediately after opening, allows up to 10 minutes for login completion, and skips re-authentication if already authenticated. It also includes troubleshooting steps for persistent issues. However, it doesn't explicitly mention potential side effects like browser session conflicts or data persistence, which could be relevant 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 appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality and usage guidelines, but the troubleshooting section adds substantial length. While the troubleshooting information is potentially useful, it could be considered excessive for a tool description. The description could be more concise by focusing on the essential information needed for tool selection and invocation.

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 that this is an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral characteristics, and includes troubleshooting guidance. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (though it mentions 'Returns immediately after opening the browser'), which leaves some uncertainty about the response format.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('show_browser' and 'browser_options') and their sub-properties thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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: 'Google authentication for NotebookLM access - opens a browser window for manual login to your Google account.' It specifies the exact action (opens browser for manual login), the resource (Google account), and the context (NotebookLM access). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 're_auth' and 'get_health' by focusing on first-time authentication.

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 this tool: 'Use this for first-time authentication or when auto-login credentials are not available.' It also specifies when not to use it: 'If already authenticated, this tool will skip re-authentication. For switching accounts or rate-limit workarounds, use 're_auth' tool instead.' This clearly differentiates it from alternatives and provides context for appropriate usage.

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