server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts — the default call is 'fast, network-free,' the account block needs a live session, and stale sessions degrade to `{available: False, reason: ...}` rather than failing the call. Much of the remaining text narrates return fields that the output schema already carries, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and organized into clear blocks, so the structure is good, but it is long for a one-parameter read tool whose return shape is already captured by an output schema. The multi-clause enumeration of `auth` and `account` fields, plus the closing justification paragraph, is information the agent can largely get from the schema.

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 agent has everything needed: when to call it, what the default (network-free) call returns, how to opt into the account block, and how failures degrade. Since an output schema exists, the return-value detail is bonus rather than necessity, making this more than complete 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 0% for the lone `include_account` boolean, so the description must compensate, and it does: it states exactly what setting it true fetches, that the block is off by default, and why (quota fields require a live session). No ambiguity remains about the parameter's effect or default.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and dual resource — 'Report the server version and local authentication health' — which is far more precise than a tautology. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings like `ping` by framing itself as the pre-flight auth/health check. The only gap is that it never explicitly names a sibling it is distinct from, so it misses the top tier.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to concrete siblings: check `chat_tasks` load before submitting a `chat_start` batch, and call this to confirm login 'before driving notebook tools.' It even prescribes the fallback action ('run `notebooklm login` on the server host') when `authenticated` is false, leaving nothing to inference.

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