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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete return contents (full text, tags, source), but since an output schema exists this is modest additional value rather than essential disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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-parameter read with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies enough to call correctly. The only mild omission is guidance for when the id is not known, which sibling search/list tools would cover.

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 there is a single required 'id' parameter already documented. The description only restates that a note is looked up 'by id' and adds no format, source, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one of the user's notes) plus the scope of what is returned (full text, tags and source). It implicitly distinguishes notes from the sibling note-type tools (get_draft, get_literature_note) by specifying 'notes', though it does not name those alternatives 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 implied by 'by id' — fetch a single note when you already have its identifier — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to search_notes/list_recent_notes as alternatives for when the id is unknown.

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