search_in_page

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 revealing behavioral traits. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, but does not describe what is returned (e.g., block IDs, context, count), whether pagination exists, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is insufficient.

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, no redundant words, and front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place without being verbose.

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 should cover what the tool returns, but it does not. It explains the search behavior and optional scope adequately, but leaves the return format and coverage (e.g., which block types) unstated. It is functional but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal detail: it only reemphasizes that the search is case-insensitive and that the optional scope is a toggle title. This does not add significant 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 it searches raw Notion block plain text inside a page, with optional scoping to a toggle. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (global search) and 'find_replace' (find and replace). The verb 'search' and resource 'page' are specific and directly convey the function.

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 when to use this tool: for searching within a page's raw block text, optionally restricted to a toggle. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like the global 'search' tool. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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