Easy Notion MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the filter usage but doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 with filtering) and no annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and some usage guidelines but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output information, it should do more to compensate, leaving room for improvement.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'filter') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds some context by explaining how to use the filter for databases and suggesting a follow-up action with 'get_database', but this doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose as 'Search Notion pages or databases' with a specific verb ('Search') and resources ('Notion pages or databases'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_pages' or 'list_databases' by implying a query-based search rather than listing all items, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'query_database' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 on when to use this tool, specifying to 'Use filter: 'databases' to find databases by name, then get_database for schema details.' This gives practical guidance on filtering and follow-up actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_pages' or 'query_database' from the sibling list, which could help avoid confusion.

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