content.download

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as file formats and export actions (returns URL). Annotations include idempotentHint: true, which aligns with the download/export behavior. No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well.

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 concise and well-structured. It uses bullet-point-like formatting to clearly enumerate supported types and their behaviors. Every sentence is informative and avoids redundancy.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers required content types and optional parameters. The note about report content clarifies a special case. No major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the outcome of each content_type enum value, which aids in parameter selection. This goes beyond the schema's simple 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: to download or export generated content from NotebookLM. It lists supported content types with specific output formats (MP3, URL, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like content.generate and content.list.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for downloading/exporting) and outlines the behavior for each content type. It implicitly suggests using it after content generation, though explicit mention of prerequisites would strengthen the guidance.

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