notebook_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: automatic fallback to active_source_ids, citation-bearing answers, and the state-changing side effect of save_as_note writing a note. It omits auth requirements, whether the query is read-only absent save_as_note, and any cost/latency or engine-selection behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the two behavioral clauses that matter most. Minor clutter from inline backticks and JSON-path detail, but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so the answer/citation shape need not be described. But for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, three parameters (engine, workspace_dir, notebook_id) are entirely undocumented and the mutation boundary of save_as_note is only implied — the definition is adequate, not sufficient.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine semantics for source_ids (default resolution), conversation_id (follow-up threading), and save_as_note/note_title (note persistence), but leaves engine, workspace_dir, and notebook_id completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask a grounded question against a Gemini Notebook') plus the return shape ('answer + inline citations'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like notebook_notes or notebook_search_sources. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the retrieval-plus-generation framing makes the role obvious.

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?

It explains useful conditional behavior (default source filtering when source_ids is omitted) and the multi-turn path via conversation_id, which implicitly tells the agent when to reuse a conversation. It never says when to prefer this over notebook_search_sources, notebook_research, or notebook_get_source_text, so sibling selection still requires inference.

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