cross_notebook_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It warns about rate limits for all=True and mentions per-notebook citations, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects. This is adequate but could be more detailed.

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 two short sentences with no redundant text. The main action and selection options are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 existence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the core functionality and selection methods adequately. No additional context is needed for a straightforward query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the selection methods already covered by the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Comma-separated tags'). It adds minimal extra meaning beyond grouping the parameters by selection mode.

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 uses a specific verb ('query') and resource ('multiple notebooks'), and highlights aggregated answers with per-notebook citations. It clearly distinguishes from sibling notebook_query by emphasizing the cross-notebook capability.

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 specifies three ways to select notebooks (by name, tags, or all=True), providing clear guidance on usage. While it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, the selection methods and sibling tool notebook_query imply the scope.

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