Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: capabilities are probed with read-only calls and write capabilities show as unknown until an actual write occurs, which tells the agent how reliable each capability answer is.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core purpose before parenthetically listing the details. It is dense but every listed element (areas, API version, limits, capability availability) is relevant and earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so by enumerating areas, API version, limits, and capability status. For a zero-parameter introspection tool with clear safety annotations, this is complete enough, with only the exact response structure left unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on the returned information instead.

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 the tool reports what the server can do with the current integration and enumerates the specific deliverables: covered areas, Notion API version, planning-relevant limits, and available capabilities. It is a distinct discovery/introspection purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied through 'limits that matter for planning' and the note that write capabilities only become known after a write, suggesting this tool is for pre-flight discovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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