notebooklm_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the answer is grounded and returns citations — but says nothing about latency, failure when a notebook is empty, or result format.

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 with no filler, and the key distinguishing attribute ('con citas') is placed at the end of a front-loaded clause. Nothing redundant, though it is terse rather than richly structured.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits what happens on an empty/unknown notebook and how the cited results are shaped, which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 100%, with both parameters documented ('Pregunta o instrucción de análisis jurídico' and 'ID del cuaderno'). The description only reinforces the notebook context and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (consulta/query) and resource (documentos cargados en un cuaderno de NotebookLM), plus a distinguishing trait: the query is 'fundada' and returns 'citas'. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling write/setup tools (add_source, create_notebook), though no sibling is named 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?

The description implies the notebook must already contain loaded documents, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no comparison against the many retrieval alternatives in the toolset (busqueda_universal, consulta_maestra, doctrina_search). The agent must infer the workflow.

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