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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the endpoint path and 'read one note', offering no extra behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 resource, then the endpoint. No filler, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimal but misses explaining the parameters and doesn't clarify return value or edge cases. Given 0% schema coverage and no output schema, more detail would help an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only maps parameter names into the URL path ({property_id}, {record_id}), providing minimal semantic meaning beyond the schema's integer types; it doesn't explain what a record_id represents (a note ID) or any constraints.

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 'Read' and resource 'one note associated with a property', and gives the exact endpoint path. This distinguishes it from list_property_notes by implying a single-record fetch, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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?

Implies usage when retrieving a single note by ID, but doesn't state when to prefer it over list_property_notes or what happens if the note doesn't exist. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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