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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — visibility is limited to pages the workspace has shared with the integration — but says nothing about result caps or pagination for a list-style tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering purpose, scope, downstream use, and return shape with no filler. Slightly dense, but every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in depth, and it still sketches the shape. For a low-complexity two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/cap behavior is left unspecified.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in-schema, including the query fallback and the connectionId provenance from notion_status. The description only restates the workspace scoping, adding no new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the Notion pages') plus the scope qualifier ('a connected workspace shared with QuestionPunk') and ties the result to a concrete downstream action (choosing a parent for notion_survey_create_database). An agent can distinguish this from notion_list_databases or notion_status without opening any schema.

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 dependent-use framing ('to choose where notion_survey_create_database puts a new database') makes the when-to-use condition explicit, and the schema notes that an omitted query lists most recently edited. It does not name what to use instead when the target is a database rather than a page (notion_list_databases), so sibling disambiguation is incomplete.

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