Ask NotebookLM a question

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

The description states that sending a question can start a new conversation (via omitted conversationId), implying state mutation. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which is contradictory. According to rubric, describing a mutation while annotation says read-only results in score 1 and flagging contradiction.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and output, and the second provides key behavioral nuance. No extraneous information.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior and the conversationId parameter. However, it does not detail how sourceIds restrict answers or how timeoutSeconds affect behavior. Given the schema covers most parameters, this is adequate but not 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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that omitting conversationId starts a new conversation, which is not present in the schema. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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: 'Send a question to NotebookLM and return the answer plus citations.' It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('NotebookLM'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like chat_configure or chat_history.

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 concrete usage guidance: 'If conversationId is omitted the server starts a new conversation.' This helps the agent decide when to include conversationId. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., chat_configure for settings), but the context from sibling names mitigates this gap.

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