notion_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating that routing only happens through the governed connector authority and that effect must be read. However, it also includes a generic approval_ref note about resuming writes that is irrelevant for a read-only operation, and it does not describe output or pagination 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 compact and well organized: a one-line identity statement, a single behavioral constraint, and a structured Args list. There is no filler, and the important routing constraint is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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?

The parameter mechanics, authorization constraint, and required effect are covered, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be described. However, the description is incomplete for tool selection: it never plainly states that it lists users, what arguments list_users accepts, or when it should be chosen over related Notion and list_users tools. It is adequate for invoking the tool after selection, but weak for deciding to select it.

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 parameter-meaning burden. The Args block compensates well: it clarifies that arguments is a JSON string, project_id is an authenticated UUID, project_ref is exact, connector_account_ref is a project-bound alias, idempotency_key is a stable business-action identity, and effect must be read. It still does not explain what the arguments JSON should contain specifically for list_users, but the coverage is significantly improved over the bare schema.

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 says "Notion connector operation `list_users`" and names the platform tool, but it never states in plain terms that this tool lists Notion users or what the result is. That is essentially a tautology of the tool name, so an agent has to infer the operation from the name alone.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion_search, notion_query_data, notion_get_user, or other connectors' list_users tools. The routing sentence describes an authorization constraint, not usage context, so the agent is left without selection criteria.

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