Dossier Query

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-obvious traits — the source set is software-enforced, sessions default to new, and citation numbering is only valid within a single answer (with a citation_key format). It omits auth requirements, error/idempotency behavior, and confirmation that the call is read-only, leaving important 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?

Two dense sentences, with purpose front-loaded and constraints following. Parentheticals carry genuinely useful detail, so little is wasted, though the packing is on the terse side.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description adds citation-validity context. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 3 required fields, the semantics of research_id, question_id, and conversation_id remain unaddressed.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies source_ids (pass a single source for per-source evidence) and implies conversation_id via the 'default new session' note, but says nothing about question_id or research_id, so it only partially covers the parameter set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (ask NotebookLM a question over a software-enforced source set) and hints at the per-source evidence case, which points toward the sibling dossier_evidence. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so this lands just below the sibling-differentiating top score.

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?

Gives real usage context: a new conversation is the default, and to do per-source evidence you must pass only one source. This is clear conditional guidance, though it never explicitly says when to prefer dossier_evidence or dossier_compare over this tool.

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