notebook_list

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds authentication requirements and scraping behavior (navigates to homepage), which supplements the annotations without contradiction. It does not detail rate limits or speed, but overall adds useful behavioral context.

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 structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet points, and a note on authentication. It is slightly verbose but front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, but could be more concise.

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 is read-only with an output schema (present), the description covers purpose, use cases, auth requirement, and extracted data. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 input schema has 1 parameter (show_browser) with descriptions. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states it scrapes NotebookLM homepage to list notebooks with IDs and names, using specific verbs like 'scrape' and 'extract'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like library_list by focusing on real-time account state via scraping.

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 explicitly lists four use cases (discover notebooks, get IDs, verify existence, find to delete). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the use cases are specific and actionable, providing clear context for selection.

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