read_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavior: it returns OCR text for each page, including multiple word candidates separated by '|' to aid context selection. This clarifies output format and implies a read-only operation, though it doesn't cover error handling or edge cases like missing notebook IDs.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for return format, and a clean argument list with defaults. No redundant 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?

The description covers purpose, output format, and parameter semantics effectively. Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the read operation, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: notebook_id sourced from list_notebooks, page_start with 1-indexing and default, page_end with special value 0 meaning all pages. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 'Read OCR text from a GoodNotes notebook' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by noting it returns text 'for each page' with candidate separators, which is distinct from sibling tools like read_page or list_notebooks.

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 implies usage via page range parameters and defaults (0 = all pages), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over read_page or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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