list_notebooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a restatement of returned fields, which the existing output schema already provides, and says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or truncation beyond the default limit.

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?

One short sentence with the scope and the returned fields front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Return values need not be explained given the output schema, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. However, the description never signals that listing can be filtered or capped, so an agent reading only the description could miss the search/limit capability entirely; adequate but with a clear gap.

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 both `limit` (1-200) and `query` (title text filter) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description notably omits any mention that filtering by title text is possible, which would have been a useful pointer beyond the schema.

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 ("Lista los notebooks de la cuenta") and names the fields returned (id, title, source count, dates). It is clearly distinguishable from get_notebook in intent, but it never explicitly contrasts with siblings such as list_sources or list_artifacts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_notebook (single notebook), list_sources, or search_sources, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb "Lista".

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