notion-read

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

The description adds that it returns structured content including properties and child blocks, giving some behavioral insight. However, with no annotations, it omits details such as error handling, authentication, and whether it is strictly read-only in practical terms.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource, with no redundant words 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 tool is simple, but the description does not clarify that exactly one of the three optional parameters should be supplied, and the absence of an output schema leaves return format ambiguous. Combined with no annotations, the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (page_id, block_id, database_id) with 100% coverage. The description maps these to the resource types but adds no extra semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'read' and names the resources (pages, databases, blocks) from Notion, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'notion-query', so it misses the top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion-query or notion-write. It merely states what the tool does without context or exclusions.

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