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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds useful behavioral detail by saying the response is full Markdown with numbered sources and links to the official record.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. The core return shape is stated immediately.

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-item read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. Since there is no output schema, it helpfully states the response format and included links.

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 100%, and the single slug parameter is already documented as coming from list_notes or search_notes. The main description does not add syntax or example guidance beyond that schema-level meaning.

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 identifies a single note being returned in full as Markdown, along with numbered sources and official-record links. The word 'One' implies a single-item read versus list/search siblings, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a full note when you have a note slug. The description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_notes or search_notes, though the schema separately notes the slug comes from those tools.

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