search_in_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching and optional scoping, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., no matches, invalid toggle title), return format, or performance implications. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key details. Every piece of information is relevant, and there is no verbosity or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify return format or error handling. For a search tool, additional context about result structure or limitations would improve completeness. It remains adequate for basic use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that search is on 'raw Notion block plain text' and that scoping includes 'toggleable heading', beyond the schema's 'toggle title'. This enhances understanding of the parameters.

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 action ('search raw Notion block plain text inside a page') and its optional scoping to a toggle or toggleable heading. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' (global) and 'find_replace' by being page-specific and read-only.

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 for searching within a specific page without providing explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'search' or 'find_replace'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.

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