notion_list_custom_emojis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly implies a read-only enumeration and usefully discloses the icon-syntax contract, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, permission requirements, or whether the list is workspace-wide scoped. Adequate but with real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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, purpose front-loaded, then the consumption hint, then the param note. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the one optional param is documented in prose. What's missing is scale/behavior on large workspaces (pagination or truncation) — minor but not irrelevant for a listing tool.

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% (the schema only declares a string with default ""), so the sentence 'name: optional exact-name filter' is doing real work — it supplies optionality and exact-match semantics that the schema lacks. A single trivial param keeps this from being a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the workspace's custom emojis.' No sibling tool covers emoji enumeration, so disambiguation is trivial, but the statement is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 goes beyond 'what' to explain downstream use: pass a result as icon="custom_emoji:<name>" to notion_create_page / notion_update_page, naming the exact siblings that consume it. It stops short of stating when not to use it or whether cached/refreshed results matter.

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