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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful value by naming the fields returned (compensating for the absent output schema) and citing the REST endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior or permissions.

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 resource and return fields. The 'GET /api/v2/note/{id}' clause is mildly redundant for an agent but does anchor the underlying endpoint.

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 single-param read tool with annotations covering safety, this is largely complete — the field list stands in for the missing output schema. Only the not-found/error case is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single note_id parameter. 'by id' confirms the identifier refers to a note, but adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema's integer type already conveys.

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 ('One note by id') and enumerates the returned fields (title, body, importance, author), so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the list_*_notes siblings by being the single-record-by-id lookup, though it never names them.

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 have its id, as opposed to funraise_list_household_notes or funraise_list_supporter_notes for collections. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or handling for a missing note is given.

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