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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the returned content is untrusted user text and must be treated as data, not as instructions. This is a meaningful behavioral warning that helps prevent prompt injection mistakes.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a necessary safety note. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is well front-loaded.

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, single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, how the returned content should be handled, and the schema covers the only parameter. No output schema exists, but 'volledige inhoud' sufficiently communicates the return value.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter, but none is really needed given the schema's coverage.

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 specific operation: retrieving the full content of one note. It distinguishes the tool from mutating siblings like create_note or append_to_note, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from search_notes, which is the most likely alternative.

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 usage context is implied by 'Haalt de volledige inhoud van één notitie op' — an agent can infer this is for fetching a single note's full content. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_notes or mention prerequisites like needing an existing note ID.

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