search_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that results are fragments ordered by relevance, which is useful ranking context, but says nothing about scoring thresholds, empty-result behavior, or latency/cost of an open-world semantic search.

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 compact sentence with the key concept (semantic search, relevance-ranked fragments) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its only clause on ranking rather than on the routing information an agent most needs.

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 a full input schema and an output schema present, return values and parameters are covered elsewhere, so the description's remaining obligation is disambiguation from the other search/read tools, which it does not provide. Adequate but with an obvious gap for a tool sitting among four overlapping retrieval siblings.

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%, including the note that notebook_id comes from list_notebooks, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional semantics about query phrasing, the source_ids scoping, or the 1-30 limit, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: semantic search over NotebookLM sources returning the most relevant fragments ranked by relevance. It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions how it differs from siblings like keyword_search, grep, or ask_notebook, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus keyword_search, grep, ask_notebook, or read_source, all of which could plausibly satisfy a lookup need. The only implicit cue is the word 'semántica', which an agent must interpret on its own.

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