list_notebooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are live, include an explicit count, and that cached results are marked catalog_stale when live discovery is unavailable. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'list'.

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, front-loaded purpose, and no waste. The first sentence states what it does; the second adds usage and behavioral nuance efficiently.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral detail. The missing parameter explanation is a gap but doesn't undermine overall completeness for the tool's simplicity.

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 one optional enum parameter (freshness: auto/force) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain these values. The agent knows the options but not their semantics, so the description provides no value here.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing the authenticated account's live NotebookLM notebooks. It specifies the scope (expert notebooks) and distinguishes it from siblings like list_sources by focusing on notebooks rather than sources.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks what expert notebooks are available,' providing clear usage context. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is specific enough for a straightforward listing tool.

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