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 meaningfully reveals the return composition: full note text, section-by-section, each section tied to verified records. It does not mention locale behavior, missing-note errors, or permissions, but it goes well beyond a bare restatement of the tool name.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a single clear clause. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the response contains and when to use the tool. The main gaps are undocumented parameter semantics and no statement about error conditions or locale defaults, but these are modest for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'slug' or 'locale' mean or how they affect the result. It implies the note is identified by some single-key parameter, but the agent must infer that slug is the identifier and locale is an optional filter.

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 that the tool retrieves the full text of a single note, organized section by section, with the verified records backing each section. This is a specific verb-resource-scope combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_notes or search.

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 explicitly says to use the tool when quoting or citing rather than summarizing, giving an agent a clear decision rule. It does not name the sibling alternative to use for summaries or state explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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