systemprompt_search_notion_pages_by_title

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 behavior ('exact or similar title matches') which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a search 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 that this is a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and its behavioral characteristics. While it adequately covers the basic purpose and usage context, it doesn't address the output format, error conditions, or other operational details that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 marginal value by reinforcing that the search can be 'exact or partial match' for the title parameter, but this is essentially restating what the schema already says. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter information in the description.

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: 'Searches specifically for Notion pages with titles matching the provided query.' It specifies the verb (searches), resource (Notion pages), and scope (by title). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'systemprompt_search_notion_pages' which appears to be a more general search tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for finding exact or similar title matches when you know the page name.' This gives practical guidance about the appropriate scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the general 'systemprompt_search_notion_pages' sibling tool.

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