notion_retrieve_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Retrieves' and the enumerated result set ('property definitions, title, description') make the read-only behavior and return scope clear. It does not mention auth or failure modes, but for a simple retrieval tool that is not a serious gap.

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?

One sentence with no filler: every word earns its place. The semantic content is front-loaded: 'Retrieves database schema' comes first, followed by the concrete parts of that schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient: it identifies the resource, the required parameter, and the response categories. It could add an explicit pointer to notion_query_database for database contents, but that is a usage nicety rather than a completeness gap.

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%: both database_id and extract have explicit descriptions, including the extract special values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the target is a database, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('database'), and a precise object ('schema: property definitions, title, description'). This clearly separates it from sibling retrieval tools like notion_retrieve_page and notion_retrieve_block, and from notion_query_database which retrieves database rows/content.

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 when schema metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as notion_query_database for contents. The usage context must be inferred from the word 'schema' rather than being directly stated.

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