notebooklm_get_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get source details' implies a read-only operation, but gives no information about permissions, response shape, errors, or whether the sourceId must belong to a specific notebook. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, which is exactly what the format calls for, even if richer detail is absent.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'source details' means, what information is returned, and any prerequisite context. The one-parameter schema is simple, but the missing behavioral and contextual information leaves the agent under-informed.

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 only parameter, sourceId, has a tautological description ('Source ID') and full 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description text adds no additional meaning about sourceId format, ownership, or how to obtain valid values.

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 identifies the action (get) and resource (source details), so an agent knows this is a retrieval operation on a source. It does not meaningfully distinguish itself from siblings like notebooklm_get_metadata or notebooklm_get_notebook, since 'details' is not elaborated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that notebooklm_get_metadata should be used for metadata retrieval, or that this returns full source details instead. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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