notion_read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains recursive fetching of nested blocks, the max_depth limit, and the behavior of include_block_ids, including how to use the resulting block IDs with other tools. This is more than a basic read operation, though it does not mention rate limits or potential large page considerations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear structure separating the core function from parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers full functionality, return format, parameter details, and even points to related operations for block IDs. It is complete for a read tool with three parameters and an output schema, though it could optionally mention read-only safety or error scenarios, but these are not critical.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: what page_id is and where to get it, the range and default for max_depth, and the effect and purpose of include_block_ids. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond raw schema types and defaults.

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 reads a Notion page's properties and content as markdown, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from mutation and search siblings, but does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling notion_read_page_markdown, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool should be used to read page content, such as the title, properties, and blocks, and mentions using block IDs for updates/deletes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like notion_read_page_markdown or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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