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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world profile, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return payload (full Markdown, path, version, room) — useful since there is no output schema. The version carry-over hint to replace_note is genuine behavioral context. It omits error behavior for missing notes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and addressing modes, then the return shape, then the downstream workflow tip. No filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how the result feeds replace_note. The remaining gap is resolution behavior — mutual exclusivity of path/title and not-found handling — which an agent would want before calling.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a sample path with folders/extension and the wikilink analogy for titles, but never addresses precedence when both path and title are supplied or what happens when neither is given — a real ambiguity for a 0-required-parameter tool.

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 ("Read one note") and pins down the two addressing modes, path or title, with a concrete example. "One note" implicitly separates it from list_notes/search_notes, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just 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?

The closing sentence gives a real workflow cue: capture the version if you plan to call replace_note later. However, there is no guidance on how to obtain a path or title in the first place (search_notes or list_notes) and no statement of when not to use this tool.

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