listNotionDatabases

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. The verb 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, and 'databases the user has access to' scopes the result set. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the list includes database objects or just names—common traits for a list endpoint. The description is minimally adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Retrieves a list of databases') and immediately scopes it ('the user has access to in Notion'). Every word contributes value; there is no padding or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of alternatives or use cases, and does not describe the return format (e.g., database names, IDs). For a list tool in a large sibling family, this creates ambiguity in tool selection and expectation setting.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully defines invocation requirements. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'databases the user has access to in Notion', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like listNotionPages and queryNotionDatabase. The scope ('the user has access to') adds precision.

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. The description doesn't mention that listNotionPages is for pages, queryNotionDatabase is for querying a specific database, or that this is the first step in discovering available databases. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and context.

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