notebook_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clarifies the scope ('EXISTING sources'), the exclusion of new-source search, and parameter defaults, but does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous, how long it may block, or what happens with follow-up conversation state beyond the new_conversation flag. This is adequate but not deeply 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 is compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a one-line exclusion, an alternative-tool pointer, and a concise argument list. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool has six parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the main use case, exclusions, alternatives, and parameter behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention asynchronous alternatives like notebook_query_start/status, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema: source_ids 'default: all', conversation_id is 'For follow-up questions', timeout uses an environment variable default, and new_conversation 'Start a fresh conversation when conversation_id is omitted.' This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Ask AI about EXISTING sources already in notebook' and explicitly contrasts with 'NOT for finding new sources.' This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes the tool from research_start and related query tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use research_start instead for: deep research, web search, find new sources, Drive search.' This tells the agent not only when to use notebook_query but also which sibling tool to use for alternative tasks.

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