research_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns sources and can import them via the `import` parameter, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond importing, leaving some gaps.

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 with two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose. The phrase 'RPC-backed' is slightly jargon but not harmful. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers the main behavior and the import option. For a tool with 4 well-documented parameters, the description is adequately complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a note about setting `import: true` to also add sources, but this is redundant with the schema's parameter description. No new semantic value is provided.

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 verb 'Discover', the resource 'web sources for a notebook', and the method 'NotebookLM Fast Research'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'notebook_ask' or 'source_add' by specifying web research for a notebook.

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 implies usage for discovering and optionally importing web sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'library_discover' or 'source_add'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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