notion_list_deletions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: results are scoped to deletions recorded by this server (not all of Notion's trash) and are ordered newest-first. It says nothing about whether the listing is read-only, pagination, or retention limits on the backups.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key scoping qualifier ('through this server') and ordering up front. No filler, though there is room for one short clause on the limit parameter without bloat.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back ('with their Markdown backups'). The unaddressed 'limit' parameter is the main completeness gap.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it — no default, no maximum, no statement of what happens when omitted. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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+resource ('List blocks deleted') and adds scope ('through this server', 'newest first', 'with their Markdown backups'), which clearly separates it from the mutating siblings notion_delete_blocks and notion_restore_blocks. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is not 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?

The purpose implies the use case (reviewing what was deleted, presumably to restore), but the description never states when to call this versus notion_restore_blocks or notion_trash_page, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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