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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description earns credit by disclosing the actual return payload including the link graph and backlinks. It stops short of stating what happens when no note matches or when id and title disagree.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and then the return contents, with zero filler. Every phrase carries information an agent can use.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back (body, tags, links, backlinks) and how to address the note. Only edge behavior — not-found handling and id/title precedence — is left unstated for a tool whose required-parameter count is zero.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' and 'title' including the 'exact title, if you do not have the id' caveat. The description restates the id-or-exact-title addressing rule without adding precedence or fallback semantics, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one note in full') and even enumerates the payload: body, tags, outbound [[Title]] links, and backlinks. That is enough to separate it from kb_list_notes/kb_search_notes by implication, but it never names those siblings or states the contrast 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?

It tells the agent how to address the note ('by id or by exact title') but never says when to reach for this tool instead of kb_search_notes or kb_list_notes. Usage is inferable — fetch a single known note — but not stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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