systemprompt_search_notion_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the search scope ('all accessible Notion pages') and what gets searched, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'accessible' means in practice. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds detail about what's searched. There's no fluff, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly separating scope from behavior).

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 moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on authentication, pagination, error handling, and output format. It doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'provided query' and 'relevant matches' but doesn't elaborate on query syntax, ranking, or result format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Performs a full-text search across all accessible Notion pages using the provided query.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (Notion pages), and scope (all accessible). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'systemprompt_search_notion_pages_by_title', which appears to be a more specific variant.

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 description implies usage by mentioning what gets searched (titles, content, metadata) and that it's for 'relevant matches.' However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'systemprompt_search_notion_pages_by_title' or 'systemprompt_list_notion_pages', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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