Find Notion Targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns compact, AI-friendly candidates with stable IDs and suggested next tools, and that it trims noisy API fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 very concise—only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and outcome, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 discovery tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (compact, AI-friendly, with IDs and suggested next tools) and how it compares to alternatives. It covers the key context an AI agent needs, though it could be slightly more explicit about pagination and output structure.

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 100% and all parameters have detailed descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it finds Notion pages or data sources, returning compact candidates with stable IDs and suggested next tools. It distinguishes from sibling notion_search by noting it trims noisy API fields and highlights IDs.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: before low-level retrieve/query tools when the user gives a title, partial name, or vague target. Also recommends preference over notion_search for discovery, explaining the benefit.

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