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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds important behavioral context: case-insensitivity, returning blocks with page association, and the cached-only limitation. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about coverage and results.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences. The first front-loads the verb, target content, and action; the second adds a critical caveat without redundancy. Every clause earns its place and there's no filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, an output schema is present, annotations cover safety, and the schema documents both parameters. The description supplies the essential behavioral nuance (cached-only limitation) and return format, leaving no major gaps. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (query and limit). The description mentions 'phrase' and case-insensitivity but does not add any meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Searches' and clearly defines the scope: cached Notion content (page titles and block text), with a case-insensitive phrase match. It also states the return type (matching blocks with their parent page), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_list_pages or notion_read_page that don't perform text search.

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?

Provides a key usage caveat: only locally-cached content is searched and pages never opened won't match. This gives clear context on when results may be incomplete, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for full Notion search or when to use them instead. No exclusionary guidance, but the context is useful.

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