Easy Notion MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), discloses the output content ('schema — property names, types, and select/status options'), and hints at its preparatory role. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid database_id) or rate limits.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and output, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, output, and usage context well. A minor gap is the lack of error handling or output format details, but for a simple read tool, this is acceptable.

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 documents the single parameter 'database_id'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or where to find the ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get a database's schema') and resource ('database'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_databases' (which lists databases) and 'query_database' (which queries data). It explicitly mentions what the schema includes: 'property names, types, and select/status options'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before query_database or add_database_entry to know the exact property names and valid values.' It names specific alternatives (query_database, add_database_entry) and explains the prerequisite role of this tool.

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