notion_get_async_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the write is asynchronous and that the task ID came from the initiating tool, but it does not describe status semantics, polling expectations, task expiration, or whether the check is strictly read-only.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose and triggering condition. The parenthetical is slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted and the parameter note is directly useful.

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 one-parameter async-status tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and where the task ID comes from. Additional details about polling or terminal states would help, but the core call path is sufficiently documented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone undocumented parameter. It does so by explaining that task_id is 'the task ID from that reply,' which gives the parameter real meaning beyond its type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('background write') and explicitly ties the tool to async writes initiated by notion_create_page or notion_replace_page_content. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/write tools.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: after a large create/replace call returns a task ID instead of finishing synchronously. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or polling behavior, but the triggering condition is clear.

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