cross_notebook_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions rate limits and aggregated citations, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a cross-notebook query tool.

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 description is concise (~80 words) and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line summary, then lists arguments in a bullet-like format with examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool complexity (cross-notebook query) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input selection methods and gives a sense of the output (aggregated answers with citations). It does not detail the output format, but the output schema handles that.

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%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: query as 'Question to ask across notebooks', notebook_names as 'Comma-separated notebook names or IDs', tags as 'Comma-separated tags', all as 'Query ALL notebooks'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type definitions.

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 clearly states 'Query multiple notebooks and get aggregated answers with per-notebook citations.' It specifies the verb (query), resource (multiple notebooks), and output (aggregated answers with citations). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'notebook_query' which likely queries a single notebook.

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?

The description provides three selection methods (by name, tags, all=True) and warns about rate limits for all=True. While it gives good context on when to use each option, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'notebook_query' for single notebook queries.

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