research_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that candidate sources are NOT automatically added, that the notebook must be empty, and it specifies the return shape. These are non-obvious, important behaviors that materially affect invocation and follow-up actions.

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 description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the return format, then crucial caveats. Every sentence carries meaningful information without repetition or filler.

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?

The description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, output format, prerequisite, and next-step action. It lacks a comparison to research_and_ask and does not describe error behavior or timeout handling, but for a non-destructive research starter with a simple output shape, it is largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that query is the topic and that notebook_id must refer to an empty notebook, but it never explains timeout_sec or its default behavior. This is partial compensation at best, leaving one parameter semantically undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Kick off NotebookLM's Discover (Fast Research) flow on a topic.' It clearly states the tool starts a research discovery process and returns candidate sources, which distinguishes it from notebook querying or source management tools like research_and_ask or source_add.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires an empty notebook, advises creating one with notebook_create if needed, and directs the agent to use source_add to import selected sources. However, it does not explicitly compare this to research_and_ask or other research-related tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance.

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