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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that restricted notes return metadata only unless includeRestricted=true, and that passing that flag triggers an audited restricted-access event and increments an access counter. It also states the return value when no note exists (null). This is thorough and transparent.

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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details conditional behavior and side effects. Every sentence adds necessary information, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the main return behavior (full content, metadata, null), the restricted-note workflow, and the audit side effect. Given the absence of an output schema, it sufficiently explains what callers can expect. No critical 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify includeRestricted's effect, but apiKey, orgSlug, and sessionId are not described. These are common auth/context parameters, but the description only partially covers the parameter meanings.

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 tool reads a clinical note ('Read the clinical note of a session'), specifies behavior for restricted vs non-restricted notes, and distinguishes itself from session_note_upsert as the read counterpart. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context for when to use this tool — retrieving a session's clinical note — and provides conditional guidance for restricted notes via includeRestricted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling session_note_upsert makes the read/write distinction clear.

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