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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns 'full content' and targets a 'specific note,' but offers no further behavioral context (e.g., auth, rate limits), which is acceptable given the strong annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler, but there is slight redundancy: 'full content' and 'complete note' repeat the same idea, as do 'retrieve' and 'read.' It is still highly readable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only tool with complete schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything necessary. It adds the workflow hint 'Use after searching' and clarifies the full-content return, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both vault_id and source_path. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the singular note target, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 clear action and resource: 'Retrieve the full content of a specific note.' It distinguishes from sibling get_notes/search_notes by emphasizing 'specific note' and 'full content,' though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

'Use after searching to read a complete note' gives explicit workflow context, telling the agent when in the process this tool fits. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple read operation.

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