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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's remaining burden is light. It adds the REST endpoint mapping but nothing about not-found behavior, error shape, or what fields a note returns; with annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the action and free of padding. The REST endpoint mapping is mildly redundant with the tool name but takes no extra parse effort.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and no output schema to explain, the description is essentially sufficient. Only minor gaps (not-found semantics, pagination-free confirmation) remain.

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% for the single required "id" parameter, and the schema already states "The note id." The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Get a single note by id") and the singular scope implicitly separates it from folk_list_notes. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a disambiguation edge case, so it stops short of a 5.

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: the agent infers it should call this when it already has a note id. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to folk_list_notes for discovery, so this is minimum-viable.

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