Better Notion MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that search returns 'pages/databases shared with integration', offering context on scope and access limitations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply, resulting in moderate added value.

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 brief and front-loaded with key actions ('info, search'), followed by a specific note on search returns and filter usage. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity. Overall, it's efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters, 60% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides basic context but lacks details on return values, error handling, or comprehensive parameter guidance. It's adequate for a read-only tool but doesn't fully address the complexity, especially with nested objects and multiple parameters, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 60%, with parameters like 'action', 'query', 'filter', 'sort', and 'limit' partially documented. The description adds that 'filter.object' is for type filtering ('page' or 'data_source'), providing some semantic clarification beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the 40% coverage gap, such as explaining 'sort' or 'limit' usage, so it meets the baseline for moderate schema support.

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 states the tool handles 'info, search' for workspace, which gives a vague purpose. It mentions 'Search returns pages/databases shared with integration', adding some specificity, but doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pages' or 'databases'. The description is functional but lacks a precise verb+resource combination that sets it apart.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pages' or 'databases' is provided. The description mentions using 'filter.object for type' in search, which implies context but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over others. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or clear use-case scenarios.

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