notion_get_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to cover those basics. It adds useful context that calls route only through the governed connector authority and that Spring verifies the effect must be 'read'. However, it also mentions approval_ref 'when resuming a write' in a read-only tool, which is confusing and slightly detracts from transparency.

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 compact and well structured, with a labeled Args block that makes the parameter list easy to scan. It front-loads the operation identity and the routing constraint before the parameter details. The opening sentence is tautological, but the overall organization is efficient.

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 connector wrapper with 7 parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description should explain how to invoke the underlying Notion get_comment operation. It does not state what a comment is, which comment identifier belongs in the arguments JSON, or whether project_id, project_ref, and connector_account_ref must be populated despite being nullable in the schema. The output schema may cover return values, but the input contract is incomplete, leaving an agent unable to call this tool with confidence.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It does provide short semantic labels for each parameter, such as project_id being an authenticated Project UUID and idempotency_key being a stable business-action identity. However, the critical 'arguments' parameter is only described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying what keys a get_comment call requires, so an agent cannot confidently construct the payload.

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 opens with 'Notion connector operation `get_comment`', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not explain what the operation does. It never states that this tool retrieves a Notion comment or what a successful call returns. The name itself is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no functional definition.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like notion_list_comments, notion_update_comment, or notion_search. The only contextual statement, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' is a routing constraint, not usage guidance. No when/when-not conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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