notebook_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately discloses that the tool queries existing sources (not modifying) and describes behavior via parameters. Missing explicit read-only claim or auth requirements, but query intent is clear.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for purpose/guidelines followed by a lean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Key info is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (but not shown), the description adequately covers tool behavior, usage constraints, and parameter details. It explains when to use alternatives, fulfilling contextual needs for a query tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters: notebook_id, query, source_ids (default all), conversation_id (for follow-up), and timeout (default from env or 120.0). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Ask AI about EXISTING sources already in notebook' and explicitly says 'NOT for finding new sources', distinguishing it from research_start. The verb 'ask' and noun 'sources' are specific.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Ask about existing sources') and when-not-to-use ('Use research_start instead for deep research, web search, find new sources, Drive search'). It also explains parameters like conversation_id for follow-up and timeout.

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