generate_summary_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether generation is synchronous or long-running, whether it needs existing sources, whether it overwrites a previous report, or whether it consumes quota. Only the fact that a document is produced is communicated.

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 short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is front-loaded with the verb, which is the one structural merit.

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 generation tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. In a sibling set containing get_notebook_summary, the overlap between a 'summary report' and a 'notebook summary' is exactly the gap that needed explaining.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The purpose of 'instructions' (free-text prompt steering, defaulting to 'Crie um documento de briefing.') and whether notebook_id must reference an existing notebook are left completely undocumented.

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 and artifact ('Gera um relatório / documento de briefing') scoped to NotebookLM, so the agent knows it produces a briefing document rather than a mind map, quiz, or audio overview. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling get_notebook_summary, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 on when to use this versus the many similar generation siblings (get_notebook_summary, generate_mind_map, generate_data_table) or what prerequisites (e.g., sources already added) must be met. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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