Server Info

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

Annotations only cover the read-only safety profile; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the default call is a 'fast, network-free probe,' include_account requires a live session, and failures degrade to {available: False, reason} instead of erroring. It also explains a deliberate omission (on-disk storage path) for security reasons.

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 information is front-loaded: purpose, then default behavior, then the opt-in block, then the security rationale. It is long for a one-parameter read tool, and the security-rationale paragraph, while useful, is more prose than an agent strictly needs, so it falls short of maximum conciseness.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description fully explains the meaningful blocks and their degraded states, the default-vs-opt-in tradeoff, and the login prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret a failure is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — and does: it explains exactly what include_account=True adds (account identity plus quota fields), why it is off by default, and how its fields behave when the session is stale.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report the server version and local authentication health,' and enumerates the exact return blocks (version, chat_tasks gauges, auth). No sibling tool does this, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It gives two concrete usage conditions: check chat_tasks load 'before submitting a chat_start batch' and confirm login 'before driving notebook tools,' plus a remediation step ('run notebooklm login'). It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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