notion_retrieve_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Retrieves' signals a non-mutating read and the field list clarifies scope, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate-limit considerations.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the scoped fields, making it immediately scannable and informative.

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 simple read operation with two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the target resource, and the categories of returned data. It lacks explicit alternatives and output shape details, but those are not critical for straightforward invocation.

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 both page_id and the extract behavior in detail. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('page metadata'), then enumerates the exact metadata categories: properties, parent, timestamps, archived status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieve_block or retrieve_database.

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 the tool: when you need page metadata. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose, such as notion_search for finding pages or notion_retrieve_block for block content.

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