notebooklm_query_metadata

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. 'Query' implies read-only, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, filtering semantics (exact vs partial match), or behavior on no results. It is not misleading, but it is far from transparent for an agent.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it quick for an agent to parse.

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?

For a tool with a nested filter object and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks guidance on filter structure, result shape, and how this query differs from sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking 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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'type' has an enum with description and 'filter' is described as 'Metadata filter'. The description adds only minimal value by confirming the filter is metadata-based, so baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Query'), resource ('notebooks or sources'), and search criterion ('by metadata'), so an agent can grasp the core purpose. It is somewhat distinct from sibling metadata tools because it implies searching resources by metadata rather than retrieving metadata for a resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish that behavior.

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 alternatives like notebooklm_get_metadata or notebooklm_list_notebooks. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing between metadata-related siblings. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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