Notion connection status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that the tool does not call Notion and reports only non-secret configuration. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful context without contradiction.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Report non-secret server configuration') and adds the important distinguishing trait ('without calling Notion'). No unnecessary words.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters, read-only and idempotent annotations, and an output schema. The description adequately explains its function and its distinction from sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema covers parameter definitions completely. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is no need for the description to add parameter details.

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 tool reports non-secret server configuration, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'without calling Notion' distinguishes it from all sibling tools that interact with Notion, and it aligns with the title 'Notion connection status'.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting it does not call Notion, which sets it apart from siblings and suggests it is for checking configuration/status without API interaction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is clear enough.

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