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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: the return includes linked and backlinked notes, user-authored content is marked as untrusted data, and encrypted notes are rejected. These are important operational details an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by important behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so well by explaining the markdown content, wikilink graph, untrusted marking, and encrypted-note refusal. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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 100%, and the id parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example link. The description does not add further semantics about the id beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the markdown of a static.md note. It also clarifies that the result includes outgoing wikilink notes and backlinks, and that encrypted notes are refused, which distinguishes it from read_note_ciphertext.

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?

It gives clear usage context by specifying that the note is one the user can open and that encrypted notes are refused. However, it does not explicitly name read_note_ciphertext as the alternative for encrypted notes, so the routing relies on inference from the sibling tool name.

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