get_database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is metadata plus schema, which is useful but shallow. It says nothing about failure modes, for example whether a missing database returns an error or an empty result, or about response size or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return values. Still, a read tool with one undocumented parameter and a near-identical sibling should clarify ID format and how it differs from query_database. It is adequate but not complete.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain what database_id accepts, such as a UUID, a raw ID, or a page URL. It gives no such guidance. The parameter name is close to self-explanatory, but the format ambiguity is a real gap for the most common failure mode.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get metadata and schema for a Notion database.' An agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling query_database, which reads database contents rather than its schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The most obvious confusion is with the sibling query_database: an agent must guess whether this tool returns rows or the schema itself. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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