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

Annotations already mark this readOnly and open-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the return format (plain text), the HTML-to-text conversion for editor-authored notes, and the important disclosure that certain note types cannot be read because opening destroys them. That destructive-note caveat is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express, and nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then input format, then return value, then exclusions — a logical order with no filler. The dashes and parenthetical example keep it tight without losing detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what you pass in, what comes back (plain text, HTML-converted), and which cases will fail and why. Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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% and the single parameter already documents that a full link or bare name is accepted, so the description is mostly restating it. The one useful reinforcement is the inline example format, but it adds no syntax or edge-case meaning the schema lacks — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the text of a note on sharenotes.dev") and immediately pins down the input shape with a concrete link and short-name example. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling create_note because the description is unambiguously about retrieval.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use it when the user gives you a ShareNotes link and asks about its contents") plus two hard exclusions — PIN-protected and delete-after-reading notes — with a redirect to the browser for those cases. The when-not guidance is unusually concrete and prevents a destructive mistake.

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