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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value by indicating the note has author and visibility fields, but it does not explain conditional embedding via the include parameter, error behavior, or what happens when include is omitted.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core operation is immediately clear.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description gives only a partial picture of the return value, and it does not explain how include affects the response or how this tool relates to hires_list_notes. These are clear but not severe gaps.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The id parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the include parameter's semantics are already fully covered by the schema description, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource ('Get a note') and names the main returned aspects ('author and visibility'). It is easily distinguishable from the sibling list tool by its singular focus, though it does not explicitly say 'single note by ID' or contrast with hires_list_notes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of hires_list_notes or how to obtain the required note id. There are no contextual conditions, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites.

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