Read a Notion database

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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive semantics, yet the description still adds real behavior: page size cap of 100 with cursor continuation, the upstream 10,000-result ceiling being surfaced in the answer, and the connectivity prerequisite (Settings > Connectors > Notion). It even notes the call is free, which matters for an agent deciding whether to loop reads.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the operative constraints (limits, cursor, auth) follow in a logical order. The 'team's content calendar' illustration and the property enumeration are slightly padded, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 9-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back, how to filter and sort, how to paginate, where the upstream cap bites, and what must be connected first. Return values are described inline, so the absence of an output schema is not a 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: it explains that match values are typed from the database's own columns, that sortBy accepts created_time/last_edited_time as well as a column, and that cursor is how you exceed the 100-row page. It leaves the databaseId vs dataSourceId choice and the archived flag untouched.

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 ('Read the ROWS of a Notion database') and immediately defines the return shape — row title, id, link, every property, plus the database's columns with types and options. That distinguishes it from siblings like read_notion_page (a page) and list_notion_pages (enumeration), so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('import a calendar and schedule its posts', 'find the row update_notion_row changes'), which ties it to a specific downstream sibling. It does not explicitly exclude the page-reading sibling or state when to prefer list_notion_pages over this, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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