list_notebooks

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope ('todos ... da conta', implying no filtering and a single account-wide result), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or return shape for what could be a long list.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero padding. Nothing to trim.

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 simple zero-param list tool against a notebook-oriented sibling set, the description is functional but thin: it never indicates what a returned notebook object contains or how results are ordered, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on this dimension; baseline is 4.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('todos os cadernos (notebooks)') with scope ('da conta NotebookLM'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_notebook_summary, but the list-all semantics are clear enough to route correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing notebooks is the obvious first call before create/add/ask operations. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative, but for a zero-param listing tool this is minimally adequate.

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