get_view

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

The description mentions it 'Returns the raw Notion view response', which is a basic behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error cases, but for a simple read operation it is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no extraneous words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of a single-parameter get operation, the description covers the essentials: what it does and what it returns. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent must guess the response structure, but for raw response retrieval it is likely sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage (one parameter with description). The tool description adds 'by ID', which reinforces the parameter, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Retrieve one Notion database view by ID') and the resource ('view'). It differentiates from siblings like 'list_views' (which lists all views) and 'create_view' or 'delete_view'.

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 when you have a specific view ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'query_view' or 'list_views'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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