notebook_query_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the query runs asynchronously, returns immediately with a query_id, requires polling, and includes timeout defaults. It doesn't cover error conditions or resource implications, but the core async behavior and lifecycle are well disclosed.

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 well-organized with an intro, usage comparison, workflow arrow, and parameter list. Every sentence/line adds necessary information without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this many parameters and an async workflow.

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 is async, has 6 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema. The description covers the async workflow, when to use it, polling, defaults, and parameter semantics. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional clarification.

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, and it does. Every parameter has a meaningful one-line explanation: notebook_id as UUID, source_ids defaulting to all, conversation_id for follow-ups, timeout defaulting from env, and new_conversation behavior. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 starts a notebook query asynchronously for large notebooks that may timeout. It explicitly distinguishes this from notebook_query by naming the alternative and specifying the 50+ source threshold and 60-second risk.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of notebook_query when querying notebooks with many sources (50+)' and provides the recommended workflow: notebook_query_start -> poll notebook_query_status. This is strong situational guidance.

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