Dossier Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: the call is asynchronous (returns research_id immediately rather than blocking for results), it creates a Notebook resource per topic, and duplicate request_key calls return the existing task instead of re-launching research. It omits auth requirements (a sibling dossier_auth_status hints one is needed) and any cost/rate-limit context, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the per-topic rule and the idempotency contract. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 fields need not be enumerated, and the description correctly covers the async launch contract, resource-creation semantics, and idempotency. The main remaining gap is that no auth prerequisite is mentioned for a tool that clearly creates server-side state.

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 a 3 is the baseline; the description earns a bump because it explains the functional effect of request_key (same key returns an existing task rather than starting duplicate research), which is more than the schema's terse 'optional idempotency key'. topic/scope/title are left to the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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: launches a NotebookLM Deep Research (web + deep) and immediately returns a research_id. It is clearly distinguished from the polling/result/export siblings by being the entry point that produces a research_id. It stops short of naming which sibling consumes that id (e.g. dossier_status), so it is clear but not fully self-locating.

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 gives two useful usage rules: one research Notebook per independent topic, and idempotent behavior via request_key. However, it never states when to call this versus its siblings (e.g. that dossier_status/dossier_result follow), nor any preconditions such as required auth. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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