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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that the tool reaches archived and deleted notes, that long notes are paginated in parts with a next_offset handshake, and that an unknown ID errors rather than returning empty. That is behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then pagination, then the error case — a sensible order with no filler. Minor redundancy in naming 'search or list_notes' twice and the slightly awkward 'in any state: the list, Archive or Deleted Notes' phrasing keep it from a 5.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the one output field that drives control flow (metadata.next_offset). For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining 'offset' operationally — set it to metadata.next_offset, omit it to start at the beginning, null means done — which turns a bare integer parameter into a documented continuation protocol.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one note's full text and details by ID') and immediately scopes it apart from search and list_notes, which 'show only titles or the first 500 characters.' An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use it after search or list_notes'), states it works across all states including Archive and Deleted Notes, prescribes the exact continuation loop while metadata.next_offset is a number, and tells the agent what to do on an unknown ID (fall back to search or list_notes). When-to-use, how-to-continue, and failure recovery are all covered.

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