notebook_query_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the asynchronous nature, immediate return of a query_id, the need to poll status, and the timeout budget. It could additionally mention failure modes or whether starting a query mutates conversation state, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by a compact workflow line and an Args block. It is slightly repetitive around the 120-second/180-second timeout guidance, but every sentence contributes useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 six-parameter asynchronous tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, timeout behavior, and parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be repeated. It stops short of explaining status semantics or error/timeout outcomes, but the explicit polling workflow mitigates that gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all six parameters are named with semantic explanations and defaults, such as 'source_ids: Source IDs to query (default: all)' and 'timeout: Wall-clock query budget in seconds'. Minor ambiguities remain around new_conversation and conversation_id interaction, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a notebook query asynchronously.' It clearly distinguishes itself from notebook_query by framing this as the variant for source-heavy notebooks or long questions, so an agent can identify the tool's role among siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool: 'Use this instead of notebook_query when the response may take longer than the default 120-second budget.' It also provides the follow-up workflow, 'notebook_query_start -> poll notebook_query_status until completed', which is direct, actionable guidance.

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