search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It shares one useful behavioral trait: 'Only returns content the integration has access to.' However, it does not mention what fields are searched (e.g., title vs. content), the return structure, or limitations like pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a search tool with no other source of behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description is quite brief. It conveys the core purpose and one access limitation, but does not explain what the response contains or how results are structured. The schema covers parameters, but the lack of return-value context leaves a gap. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters, so the description need not elaborate. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Search for pages and databases in the Notion workspace.' The verb 'search' and the resources 'pages and databases' are specific, distinguishing it from direct fetch tools like get_page or get_database. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like query_database, so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_database or get_page. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions under which it should be chosen. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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