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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it discloses exactly what is returned, including linked notes and backlinks, not just raw file content. Although it does not mention potential edge cases like missing vaults or permission failures, the additional content detail goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent predict behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines what the tool returns, the second explains identification, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title beyond the opening verb. It is easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the responsibility of explaining return contents, covering markdown, frontmatter, tags, linked brain objects, and backlinks. It also covers the three supported lookup methods and when to use the tool. For a read-only note retrieval tool with modest complexity, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a small clarification that identity can be established by object_id, path, or title, and that object_id typically comes from a search, but this mostly restates the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource: one note from the user's Obsidian vault, in full. It clarifies the scope by enumerating exact contents (markdown, frontmatter, tags, wikilink targets, backlinks) and distinguishes itself from search_obsidian_notes by contrasting excerpt vs. full note. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this whenever a search result looks like the answer' and notes that search returns an excerpt while this returns the full note. It also provides a clear workflow for following backlinks when the user asks about connections, which differentiates it from mere read-only retrieval. This is strong when-to-use guidance with a named alternative implicitly invoked.

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