Query data source

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations and schema, such as explaining the meaning of compound filters or the pagination cursor mechanics. It doesn't mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but those are less critical for a read-only tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It communicates the core action and capabilities efficiently.

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?

Despite the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity. It does not explain how to construct compound filters, what sort objects look like, how pagination cursors work, or what 'filterProperties' refers to. An agent would have difficulty invoking this tool correctly based on this description alone, especially given the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 schema has zero documentation coverage for its six parameters. The description mentions 'compound filters, sorts, and pagination,' which maps loosely to filter, sorts, pageSize, and startCursor, but it never names these parameters or explains their structure. The 'filterProperties' parameter is completely unaddressed, and the formats for filters/sorts are not described. This provides only vague hints beyond the raw property 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 clearly identifies the action ('Query'), the target resource ('a Notion data source'), and key capabilities ('compound filters, sorts, and pagination'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on pages/blocks, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_notion or get_database, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 usage for querying with complex filters, sorts, and pagination, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools such as search_notion, get_database, or get_page. There are no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use statements.

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