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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds the return shape with a sample card object, which is valuable since no output schema exists. Minor tension: it claims the note is returned "in full" yet the sample shows only kind/id/title, leaving field completeness slightly ambiguous.

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?

Purpose, identifier formats and a return example are packed into two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The bare "Argument: id." fragment is redundant filler next to the schema and example.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough: identity of the resource, id formats, and a sample response. Only the full set of returned fields is left unstated, which the "in full" claim partly obscures.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's id field already lists the PC-001 / DP-0064 / NH-001 examples, so the description's prefix list and "Argument: id" line add little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 ("Returns one field note in full by id") and pins down the identifier namespaces (PC-, DP-, NH-). The example output makes the returned object concrete, so an agent can distinguish this from find_cards at a glance.

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 a clear usage context: "Good for reading the snippet, cause and source excerpt of a card that find_cards returned," which positions it as the follow-up to a search call. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming find_cards as the retrieval alternative for lookup-by-topic.

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