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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that thread is ordered oldest first, that source is the canonical home for imported context, and that a note with has_photos=true cannot be rewritten whole. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 five sentences but each adds value: the first defines the core behavior, then it clarifies thread ordering, field roles, image retrieval, and the patching constraint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and remains efficient given the 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 output structure, image handling, and constraints, and an output schema exists, so the agent has enough context to call the tool correctly. It addresses interactions with get_note_asset, replace_in_note, and append_to_note, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

Both parameters (id and full) have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'full' implicitly but doesn't explain the full=false option. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 fetches a single note with its thread, and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning get_note_asset for image bytes and replace_in_note/append_to_note for patching when has_photos=true. It also describes fields like label, user_text, and source, making the purpose 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 provides explicit alternatives: it tells the agent to use get_note_asset for image bytes and replace_in_note/append_to_note for patching when has_photos=true. It also notes source.image_available as a condition for get_note_asset. However, it does not broadly contrast this tool with search_notes or list_recent_notes, so usage guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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