notion_retrieve_comments

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 successfully communicates the read-only nature ('retrieve') and the permission requirement ('read comment capabilities'), which are crucial for a tool accessing external data. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by start_cursor but not explained), error conditions, or what 'unresolved' means operationally.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, no fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavioral nuances needing extensive explanation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, scope, and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on return format (only implied by the 'format' parameter), pagination mechanics, error handling, or the definition of 'unresolved'. For a tool with 4 parameters and external API dependencies, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, with 4 parameters (one required), the baseline is 3, and the description's clarity about the tool's purpose indirectly helps contextualize why these parameters matter, earning a slightly higher score.

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 specific action ('Retrieve a list of unresolved comments') and target resource ('from a Notion page or block'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notion_create_comment (which creates comments) and notion_retrieve_block (which retrieves block content rather than comments). The verb 'retrieve' is precise and the scope 'unresolved comments' is well-defined.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Requires the integration to have "read comment" capabilities'), establishing a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., notion_create_comment for creating comments or notion_retrieve_block for retrieving block content).

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