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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the response contains PHI (privacy/redaction handling) and includes the full note body, which may be large. It stops short of describing not-found or error behavior.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading the identity of the tool and the returned payload before the API mapping. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-record get with full schema coverage and rich annotations, nothing critical is missing: the description compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields, and flags the PHI/full-body scope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents it as an Elation visit note id sourced from elationhealth_list_visit_notes. The description's 'by id' adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Get one visit note by id') and enumerates exactly what comes back: visit date, type, physician, signed state and the full note body. The 'one ... by id' framing cleanly separates it from the sibling elationhealth_list_visit_notes.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single note when you already have its id. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative; the only link to the sibling tool lives in the schema's parameter description rather than the tool description.

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