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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats the read-only guarantee. It adds useful scope detail ('Only pages the founder shared...'), but does not explain result ordering, pagination, auth expectations, or open-world behavior beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape. The read-only sentence is somewhat redundant with annotations, but no sentence is wasted or buried.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description needn't detail them further. However, with five parameters and only 20% schema coverage, the description leaves too many invocation details (companyId, maxResults, connectionId) unaddressed for complete guidance.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It mentions searching by title (query) and passing agent_name, but says nothing about companyId, maxResults, or connectionId, leaving most parameters vague.

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: searches the connected Notion workspace by title and returns pages/databases. This distinguishes it from the single-page sibling connection_get_connected_page, though it does not explicitly name that or other search 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?

The 'Only pages the founder shared...' sentence gives a useful scope constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like connection_get_connected_page or connection_search_connected_messages. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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