source_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with a genuinely useful caveat: drive_status_label is a separate axis and can read deleted/inaccessible/syncing while status_label stays 'ready', meaning answers may be stale. Pagination behavior (limit/offset) is not disclosed.

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 content is dense but organized into clearly front-loaded paragraphs by parameter, and each sentence adds distinct information (mode semantics, staleness caveat, filter composition). It is longer than a one-liner but earns most of its length.

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 return shapes need not be re-explained, yet the description still clarifies the meaning of key fields like kind and the two status labels. What remains missing is pagination guidance for limit/offset.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for four of six parameters: notebook (name or ID), detail (full vs compact field lists), status (with the 'error' = ghost-row meaning), and label. It leaves limit and offset pagination entirely undocumented.

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 ('List a notebook's sources') plus the accepted identifier form. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling source_list_play_books, leaving the agent to infer that this returns all sources rather than only play books.

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?

Explains the semantics of the detail, status, and label filters and notes that status and label compose, which is real usage guidance. However, it never routes the agent between this tool and its alternatives (e.g. source_read for content, source_list_play_books for a subset), so when-to-use is only implied.

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