research_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the side effects: search, notebook creation, source addition, and optional question-asking. It also states the authentication prerequisites (TRANSCRIPT_API_KEY and NotebookLM login), which is valuable context beyond the input schema.

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 well-organized with a front-loaded summary, a numbered step list, and a final prerequisite note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a compound orchestration tool with four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, this description is complete: it covers purpose, workflow, authentication requirements, and the optional final step. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The tool description restates query and question in prose but adds little semantic detail 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 states a specific, multi-step verb-resource relationship: an end-to-end pipeline that searches YouTube, creates a notebook, adds sources, and optionally asks a question. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling primitive tools like search_youtube, create_notebook, add_source, and ask_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 clearly defines the scope of use—orchestrating the full research workflow—and explicitly lists the four steps it performs. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the individual sibling tools instead, but the compound-vs-primitive distinction is strongly implied by the step-by-step breakdown.

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