get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that include_content auto-paginates all blocks, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't state permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The auto-pagination detail is a good start but insufficient for a read tool with no annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. There is no wasted text, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, but it still includes a Returns section that merely restates the purpose. The description covers the parameters and a key behavioral trait (auto-pagination), but lacks usage guidelines and permissions information. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it is adequate but has clear 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 schema provides no meaning beyond types. The description explains both parameters: page_id is the page ID, and include_content controls whether to fetch content blocks with auto-pagination. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types, but is basic and could include format expectations (e.g., page_id format).

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Notion page with its properties and optionally content'. This is a clear read operation on a page, distinguishing it from block or database tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_block or get_block_children, which also retrieve content.

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 like get_block, get_block_children, or search_pages. There are no conditions or exclusions stated to help an agent choose correctly among the many retrieval-related siblings.

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