Search Notion

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding the integration-visibility constraint ('Only content shared with the integration is searchable') and enumerating returned fields, both of which are not in the 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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, return shape, then usage. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields. Usage and scoping constraints are present; the only gap is that the limit/pagination behavior of the search is never addressed.

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 67%: 'query' and 'type' are documented in the schema, but 'limit' (default 20, max 100) is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter detail, leaving the limit parameter's semantics entirely implicit.

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 ('Search pages and databases ... by title') plus a scope qualifier ('shared with the integration'). This implicitly distinguishes it from notion_query (database-scoped retrieval) and notion_find_blocks (block content search), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear intent: 'Use this to find ids before reading or editing,' which tells the agent where this fits in a workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it versus notion_query or notion_find_blocks.

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