source_fulltext

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value not present in structured fields: the no-truncation guarantee and the security instruction to treat output as untrusted reference data, which guards against prompt injection. It omits practical traits like output size or cost on very large sources.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability statement first and the safety caveat second. Appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile; the untrusted-data warning covers the remaining behavioral risk. The only real gap is that the two required parameters are undocumented anywhere, which the description does not compensate for.

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 neither of the two required parameters is explained anywhere. The description implies a source is identified by the call, but adds no meaning, format, or relationship guidance for `notebook` vs `source_id`, leaving the agent to guess how to address a source.

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?

Specific verb (Return) plus specific resource (the full indexed source text) with a distinguishing scope qualifier ("without truncation"). It is clearly separable from list_sources/notebook_summary/ask, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Without truncation" implies this is the path to take when complete text is needed rather than an excerpt, but that contrast is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given.

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