ask

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key mechanism: the answer is produced by Gemini reading the notebook's own sources and is returned with citations. It says nothing about latency, cost, persistence of the Q&A, or auth requirements, so it is only partially transparent for a query tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the grounding/citation guarantee and the when-to-use rule. No filler or repetition.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the mechanism, grounding, and citations an agent needs to trust the result. Only minor gaps remain around cost/latency and whether the interaction is persisted.

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 the schema already explains notebook_id, source_ids scoping, conversation_id continuation, and the 'specific questions cite better' hint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('a notebook'), plus states the output is an answer 'grounded in its sources' with citations, which is concrete and distinguishable from sibling listing/generation tools like list_sources or generate_artifact. It stops short of naming any sibling it competes with, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 a clear usage condition — 'use this instead of summarizing the sources yourself when a notebook already holds the material' — which tells the agent when this beats doing the work manually. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tools are provided, so it lands at 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than full routing guidance.

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