list_notebooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, account-scoped listing and previews the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering, which matters for a list tool that may return many notebooks.

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 core action and followed by the return summary and the key routing rule. No filler and the most decision-relevant fact (ids are mandatory elsewhere) is kept.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it: what it lists, whose scope, what comes back, and why the result matters downstream.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 the notebooks') plus scope ('reachable by the signed-in Google account'). It also implicitly separates itself from get_notebook and other id-based siblings by noting that ids are the required handle throughout the toolset.

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?

'Use the ids with every other tool' tells the agent exactly when this tool is needed as a prerequisite step. It also rules out the title-based alternative ('NotebookLM has no lookup by title'), though it doesn't give explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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