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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest: the reach model (only explicitly shared content, no OAuth scope to expand it), result ordering (newest-edited first), and failure reporting via `errors` for accounts without a matching label. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation, though pagination and rate-limit behavior are still unstated.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and reach, then behavior, then the handoff to the sibling. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates returned fields (account, id, title, url, last_edited_time, object) and the `errors` channel, so an agent knows both how to call it and what it gets back. Nothing material is missing for a three-parameter, zero-required read 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `query` matches titles, `limit` is per-workspace, and `accounts` labels map to workspace names. These clarify semantics the schema only restates.

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 ('Search every connected Notion workspace for pages/databases') and immediately qualifies scope with what the integration can actually see. It is clearly separable from sibling read_notion_page, which it names as the follow-up for content.

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 explicit when-to-use branching: supply `query` to match titles, omit it to list everything shared, and call read_notion_page with a hit's `id` for text content. Alternative routing is spelled out rather than inferred.

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