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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape: content contains $[...] reference chips and linkedIssues carries {id, title, status, priority}. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but for a read-only getter the disclosure is above average.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the return-field details. Almost no waste; the parenthetical about chips and the linkedIssues field list both add real information rather than padding.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by spelling out the two notable parts of the payload (chips in content, linkedIssues with status/priority). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, missing only error/not-found semantics.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ID de la nota'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description only restates 'por id' and adds no format, range, or sourcing hints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Obtiene una nota completa por id' tells the agent exactly what is fetched and by which key. It is clearly distinguishable from notes_list/notes_search by its singular, id-based scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by 'por id' — the agent can infer this is the lookup-by-identifier path rather than a list or search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over notes_list/notes_search, nor any mention of what happens if the id does not exist.

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