notion_query_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is implementation detail. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any limitations. The name suggests a query, but no explicit guarantees are given.

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 short but includes a redundant first sentence that mirrors the tool name. The args section is structured but could be more efficient. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall clarity is limited.

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 the tool's complexity (query with two optional params and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, query capabilities, error handling, or practical usage tips. The presence of an output schema should reduce the need for return value description, but the description still lacks guidance on how to formulate queries effectively.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic explanations: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This clarifies that 'message' is a natural language objective and 'inputs' is a JSON structure, but it lacks details on format, examples, or how these interact. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 states it runs the 'query_data' action, which is a tautology of the tool name 'notion_query_data'. It does not specify what data is being queried or the result, only mentioning routing details. Among sibling tools like notion_query_database and notion_search, there is no differentiation. The purpose is vaguely implied but not clearly articulated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many notion query tools (notion_query_database, notion_query_data_source, notion_query_view, notion_search) and other domain query tools, but the description offers no context for selection. Users must infer based on the name alone.

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