search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no mention of ranking, whether results span workspace-wide content, permission/visibility constraints, or how max_results interacts with server-side limits. For a workspace-wide search, that behavioral context matters.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line carries information and there is no filler. The docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a three-parameter search tool the definition is minimally adequate, but the absence of guidance on result ordering, scope of the search corpus, and how this differs from sibling retrieval tools leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does document all three parameters, including the accepted filter_type values ('page', 'database', or ''), which the schema itself lacks since there is no enum. However it omits the default of 10 for max_results and any maximum bound, leaving part of the contract to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Notion pages and/or databases'), which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like create_page or update_page. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_pages or query_database, which keeps it below 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 at all: nothing says whether to prefer this over search_pages, query_database, or get_database, nor what the search actually covers (titles vs. page content). The only usage-adjacent information is that filter_type narrows results, which is parameter behavior rather than tool selection guidance.

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