API-retrieve-a-database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve a database' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 'Notion | Retrieve a database' is very concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's domain and action in a single phrase. However, it might be overly terse, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity, but it earns its place by being direct.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve' returns (e.g., database properties, schema, or content), any prerequisites, or error handling. For a retrieval tool in a complex API like Notion, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'database_id' documented as 'An identifier for the Notion database.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Notion | Retrieve a database' states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a database'), but it's vague about what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., fetching metadata, schema, or content). It distinguishes from siblings like 'API-create-a-database' and 'API-update-a-database' by specifying retrieval, but lacks specificity compared to tools like 'API-retrieve-a-page' or 'API-retrieve-a-block'.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for getting database structure versus querying data (which might be done with 'API-post-database-query'), or how it differs from retrieving pages or blocks. The description implies usage for retrieval but offers no context or exclusions.

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