notebook_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool queries AI about existing sources but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, if it modifies data, or any rate limits. The timeout default is noted, but overall transparency is adequte but not detailed.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose, one sentence for alternative, and a bullet list for parameters. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema (not needed in description), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics well. It explains defaults and alternatives, making it complete for agent usage. Minor missing details like response type are covered by output schema.

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%, but the description includes a detailed Args section explaining each parameter: notebook_id, query, source_ids (default: all), conversation_id (for follow-ups), timeout (with default from env or 120.0). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Ask AI about EXISTING sources already in notebook.' It also explicitly says what it is NOT for ('NOT for finding new sources'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like research_start.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to use an alternative: 'Use research_start instead for: deep research, web search, find new sources, Drive search.' This helps the agent select the correct tool.

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