read_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: output is Markdown, it is paginated, and non-report artifacts return the artifact's actual type rather than the misleading internal 'not ready' message. That error-shape detail is genuinely useful for an agent interpreting results.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the scope restriction. The explanation of NotebookLM's internal error behavior is slightly discursive but earns its place by preventing misinterpretation.

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?

With four fully documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the definition covers purpose, scope and failure mode adequately. Missing only an explicit pointer to the tool to use for non-report artifacts.

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 coverage is 100% — offset, max_chars, artifact_id and notebook_id are all documented in the schema, including the 'must be of type report' constraint. The description only echoes the pagination idea already conveyed by offset/max_chars, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (reads a report in Markdown, paginated) and scopes it to artifacts of type `report`, contrasting that with uploaded files, audio and presentations. It does not name the sibling that handles the other cases (read_source / export_markdown), so an agent must infer that routing itself.

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?

Explicitly says when it applies ('Solo los informes') and pre-empts a common mistake by describing what happens when the artifact is not a report. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to call for sources or files, and references `generate_report`, which is not in the sibling list shown.

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