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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main value-add is disclosing the returned content (all Q&A plus the linked appointment). It says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the id is unknown, or whether linked-appointment data can be null.

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 payload description. The trailing API route mapping ('IntakeQ: GET /notes/{id}') largely restates information already available from the name and schema, though it is compact.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (full Q&A and linked appointment) and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single note_id parameter is documented as a GUID in the schema, so the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one treatment note) plus the scope of the payload (every question and answer, linked appointment). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from intakeq_list_notes, but neither sibling is named explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is the by-id lookup counterpart to intakeq_list_notes. There is no statement of when to prefer this over listing, nor any prerequisite or failure-mode guidance.

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