notebook_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only implies a read operation ('Ask AI') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, does not mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a query 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately convey purpose and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information 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?

Despite having 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is very brief. It lacks details on how to use advanced features like conversation_id for follow-ups, what the query returns, or any constraints. The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information; it only gives a high-level purpose. No additional detail is provided beyond the schema.

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: 'Ask AI about EXISTING sources already in notebook.' It uses a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('existing sources') and immediately distinguishes from a sibling tool by saying it is NOT for finding new sources.

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 explicitly tells when to use ('Ask AI about EXISTING sources'), when not to ('NOT for finding new sources'), and provides an alternative alternative: 'Use research_start instead for: deep research, web search, find new sources, Drive search.'

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