Easy Notion MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'List'), specifies the return format ('database names and IDs'), and mentions integration access constraints. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, output format, and usage flow. It lacks minor details like response structure or error cases, but for a simple list tool, this is 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information (as there are none), but this is appropriate and doesn't detract from the score.

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 ('List all databases') and resource ('databases the integration can access'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_database' (which retrieves schema) and 'create_database' (which creates new databases). It explicitly defines scope and output format.

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 vs. alternatives: use 'list_databases' to get names and IDs, then 'get_database on any result to see its schema.' This clearly differentiates it from 'query_database' (for querying data) and 'get_database' (for schema details).

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