Get notebook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's return-field summary is useful but largely duplicates the existing output schema, adding little behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema supply.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler, and the return/source-type enumeration is at least informative. The field list is mildly redundant given a full output schema exists, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on purpose and downstream ID use. It is essentially complete for a simple read tool, though it omits failure behavior (invalid or missing notebook_id).

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 100% and the single notebook_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from notebook_list or notebook_create. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for a fully covered schema is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one notebook's details') and explicitly scopes to a single notebook, which cleanly separates it from notebook_list. It also enumerates what the response contains (title, emoji, ownership, timestamps, sources), so an agent knows exactly what it is retrieving.

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?

Gives clear usage contexts: fetching source IDs for notebook_query and the Studio tools, or verifying that a newly added source appeared. It names the downstream consumers explicitly, but never states when not to use it (e.g. use notebook_list to enumerate) or any prerequisite such as the notebook existing.

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