comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses dual read/write behavior, the condition that triggers each mode, and the Markdown list return format for reads. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or what an add operation returns, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, two labeled usage sections, code examples, and a short note on page references. Every section earns its place and no filler is present.

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 dual-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios, return format for reads, and accepted page reference forms. The only notable gap is the unspecified response of an add operation, which is minor for practical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats what the schema already says, though it adds concrete invocation examples and confirms the page name/ID/URL flexibility already present in the schema.

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 opening sentence 'Add or read comments on a Notion page' states a specific verb, resource, and scope, and separates the two modes with clear headers. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like read/write by scoping it to comments.

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 gives explicit context for when to use each mode: omit body to read, include body to add. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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