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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: trashed notes return a status:'trashed' summary with purge deadline instead of content, missing brain entry means no custom instructions, and inherited_instructions ordering is outermost-first.

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 verb and return contents, then layers edge cases (trash, missing brain). It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the inherited_instructions explanation is slightly long but earns its place for an editing workflow.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the return payload, the trash-summary exception, and instruction-layer semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description's 'Required: id (integer)' merely restates the schema with no added syntax or meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (a single note by ID) and enumerates exactly what the return includes: full Markdown body, tags, container path, linked notes, backlinks, attachments, and inherited_instructions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like notes-list and notes-search_mentions.

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?

It gives concrete usage context — the inherited_instructions payload means 'no separate instructions lookup is needed before editing' — and routes trashed notes to notes-restore. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative for the single-note read case, but the operational guidance is strong.

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