get_notebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: no permission requirements, no error behavior for an invalid or missing notebook_id, no mention that the sources payload may be large. 'With its sources' hints at return content, but the output schema already covers that.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with a full output schema and 100%-covered parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. The missing piece is routing guidance against list_notebooks/list_sources and any note on behavior when the id is unknown.

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%: notebook_id is tied to list_notebooks output and include_summary's cost/latency tradeoff is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing for either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one notebook') and adds scope detail ('with its sources') that distinguishes it from list_notebooks. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the singular 'one' makes the contrast inferable.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus list_notebooks, list_sources, or ask. The only implicit guidance is that a notebook_id must already be known, which is not stated in the description itself.

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