server_info

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals significant behavioral details: default call is a fast network-free probe, quota fields degrade gracefully when the session is stale instead of failing, and the deliberate omission of the on-disk storage path for security reasons. This level of depth exceeds what annotations provide.

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 long but very well-structured, with clear sections for return values, the include_account behavior, and a security note. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing critical detail. The front-loaded purpose sentence helps orientation.

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?

The description comprehensively covers the tool's behavior: return fields, parameter effects, default vs. extended modes, degradation logic, and security rationale. It also references the output schema implicitly by detailing the auth and account blocks, making it self-sufficient for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema only lists 'include_account' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining what setting it to True fetches, the structure of the account block, and the trade-off (live session needed for quota fields). This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter's purpose and consequences.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the server version and local authentication health.' It clearly separates this tool from siblings by focusing on authentication status and account information, making it distinct from health or session_status tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to confirm the server is logged in before driving notebook tools.' It even provides a remediation step if authentication fails (run notebooklm login). However, it doesn't directly compare with alternatives like health or session_status, nor explicitly state when not to use it.

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