notebooklm_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the response is 'grounded con citas' (citation-backed, derived from loaded documents), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens with an empty/unpopulated notebook.

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 efficient sentence with the key trait (grounded with citations) front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though very lean given the missing usage detail.

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-required-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by noting citations are returned. But it omits any usage routing, prerequisite, or failure-mode context that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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%, so both parameters (prompt, notebook_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('realiza una consulta fundada') and resource ('documentos cargados en un cuaderno de NotebookLM'), so the agent knows this retrieves grounded answers from a notebook. It is clearly distinguishable from notebooklm_create_notebook/add_source by the query verb, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 search/query siblings (doctrina_search, pjud_search_jurisprudencia, etc.) or versus notebooklm_list_notebooks. It does not state prerequisites such as a populated notebook or required auth.

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