搜索 Notion 页面

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (page id and link) and the access-scoping behavior, which is valuable, but it omits result limits, pagination, and ranking/ordering behavior — meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the search action and access constraint are front-loaded and the return value is appended efficiently.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing both the scope and the return shape covers most of what an agent needs. The missing pieces — pagination, result count, and the title-vs-body inconsistency — are minor but real.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema and in fact narrows the scope to 'title keyword' while the schema says '标题或正文关键词' (title or body keyword), leaving a small ambiguity about whether body text is matched.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (搜索页面 / search pages) plus the access scope (当前 integration 能访问的页面) and the return shape (page id 和链接). No sibling in the list does page search, so differentiation isn't strictly needed, but the description never names an alternative read/query tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 scope clause 'current integration can access' implies when the tool will find results and warns that pages outside the integration won't appear. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note on whether this searches only titles or also body text.

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