notion_retrieve_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'retrieve' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return structure looks like (especially problematic without an output schema).

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 perfectly concise - a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'block' is in Notion's context, what data is returned, or how this differs from retrieving pages or databases. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema and guess about return values and behavioral characteristics.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the input schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema thoroughly documents both parameters, including format requirements for block_id and detailed usage guidance for the format enum. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive 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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a block from Notion'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'notion_retrieve_page' or 'notion_retrieve_database', which also retrieve Notion resources but target different entity types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the input schema's 'format' parameter description mentions when to use 'json' vs 'markdown', this doesn't address tool selection among siblings like 'notion_retrieve_page' (for pages) or 'notion_retrieve_block_children' (for child blocks).

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