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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies that the tool returns the complete text (as opposed to excerpts) and explains that the input can be a slug, path, or URL with concrete examples. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: first the purpose, then the usage context, then the parameter format. Every sentence contributes. The example list is slightly verbose but serves a clear clarifying purpose for a voice-input‑friendly interface. No fluff.

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 one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (complete text), when to use it (after list/search), and what the input can be (slug/path/URL). It does not need to explain return structure because the output schema exists. Nothing important 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'note' parameter ('The note's slug, path, or URL'). The description reinforces this and adds real examples of each format, which is more actionable than the schema alone. It does not introduce ambiguity or conflict.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('one field note') with the qualifier 'in full', and explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools that return only an excerpt. This differentiates it from list_field_notes and search_field_notes without ambiguity.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool after search_field_notes or list_field_notes, which is a clear, usable trigger. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies it should not be used for searching or listing since those are covered by siblings. The guidance is strong but not exhaustive on exclusions.

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