research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context beyond the schema by describing the return format (claims, citations, conflicts, gaps, quality status) and the 'source-locked' and 'exactly one notebook' constraints. It does not mention side effects or auth, but this is a read-only research tool and the description is reasonably transparent.

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 consists of two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and resource. The first sentence states purpose and outcome, the second gives usage guidance. There is no redundant or fluff content.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return structure well. It also scopes the tool to exactly one notebook and gives a usage hint. However, it does not explain the meaning of the three enum-constrained optional parameters, which is a notable gap given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly covers the required parameters 'query' and 'notebook' by stating the tool researches a question against a notebook. The optional parameters 'mode', 'freshness', and 'internet_policy' are not explained at all, leaving the agent to interpret enums without guidance.

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 the specific verb 'Research' with the resource 'question against exactly one NotebookLM notebook', and explicitly describes the output as a 'source-locked evidence capsule with claims, citations, conflicts, gaps and quality status'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'exactly one' notebook, which contrasts with compare_notebooks.

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 provides a clear usage cue: 'Use this for substantive notebook questions.' It gives context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5 but is clearly above having no guidance.

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