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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behaviors: 'Fast, offline, no API limits.' 'Get' implies read-only. It doesn't mention potential staleness or output format, but goes beyond a minimal description.

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, each earning its place: 'PREFERRED for Notion hierarchy' (usage), 'Get all child pages under a page' (purpose), 'Fast, offline, no API limits' (behavior). Zero waste and front-loaded with the most important signal.

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 2-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. With no output schema, missing return-format details is a minor gap, but the tool is well-contextualized among its siblings and adequately complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (pageId, depth with default). The description's phrase 'all child pages' implies depth-based recursion but adds no syntax details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get all child pages under a page' with a specific verb and resource. The 'PREFERRED for Notion hierarchy' tag hints at its role among siblings but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of 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?

Explicitly says 'PREFERRED for Notion hierarchy' and gives reasons ('Fast, offline, no API limits') for choosing it. This provides clear when-to-use context, but lacks direct 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: returns summary by default (title + first blocks + link), and advises displaying the link. It does not cover edge cases like errors or rate limits, but it gives meaningful insight into the tool's default output behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides essential usage guidance, earning every word.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the default return structure and the summary/full content distinction. It does not detail error handling or full content format, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the default behavior of the summary parameter and when to set it to false, which is not fully captured in the schema's brief description.

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 'Get Notion page' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, recent, parent, and children. The purpose is immediately identifiable and not tautological.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use summary mode vs. full content ('Use summary=false only when you need full content to answer'). However, it does not explicitly address alternatives among sibling tools, though the tool name and description make the primary use case obvious.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral context: it is 'Fast, offline, no API limits' and returns a complete set of ancestors. It does not disclose edge cases like invalid IDs or root pages, but the operational traits are clearly conveyed.

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 with no filler words. Every phrase ('PREFERRED', 'up to the root', 'fast, offline, no API limits') adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior adequately. It clearly indicates what pages are returned, making it sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully describes pageId (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Per rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 retrieves all ancestor pages up to the root, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ancestor pages'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like notion_local_children by orientation toward the hierarchy root.

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 description explicitly marks this as 'PREFERRED for Notion hierarchy,' providing clear usage context and highlighting fast, offline operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: uses local cache, is fast, offline, and avoids API limits. This goes beyond the basic operation, though it could mention return format or cache staleness, but overall it adds meaningful context.

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?

Four short sentences that are mostly efficient, but there is redundancy between the first and last sentences both referring to browsing recent documents. Still, it is concise and front-loaded with key info.

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 simple tool (two optional numeric params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and its operational characteristics. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it lacks explicit return format details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond connecting 'recently modified' to the 'days' parameter, but the schema already explains both parameters clearly.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as the preferred way to list recent Notion pages, with focus on recently modified pages from local cache. The description distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'recent' and 'local cache', and directly positions it against the Notion API.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for browsing recent documents') and gives a clear alternative ('Use this instead of Notion API'). The 'PREFERRED' label reinforces the recommendation, providing solid usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'from local cache' and performance traits ('Fast, offline, no API limits'), but does not mention potential staleness of cached data, whether any side effects occur, or how completeness is guaranteed. Search is read-only by implication, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFERRED for searching Notion.' Every phrase adds useful context (source, speed, offline capability, alternative guidance). No wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits. It lacks an explanation of return value format or staleness caveats, but remains sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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 100% for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'type' parameter by mentioning 'pages and blocks,' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'query' and 'limit.'

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (Notion pages and blocks from local cache). It also distinguishes itself from both the Notion API and sibling local tools by being 'PREFERRED for searching Notion.'

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 guidance is explicit: 'Use this instead of Notion API for all search operations' and 'PREFERRED for searching Notion.' This gives clear direction on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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