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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the result includes a revision and that it is meant to feed into notes.save, which is beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and object, with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, including the revision-for-save workflow detail.

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-only tool with full annotation coverage and one self-explanatory parameter, the description is complete. It states what is returned, the revision detail, and the intended downstream use, so an agent has enough to 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?

The schema has no description for id (0% coverage), but the description's phrase 'by id' clarifies that id identifies the note to fetch. It does not add format or source details beyond the schema's string constraints, which is adequate for a single obvious parameter but not exceptional.

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 operation: retrieve the full content of one note by id. It is clearly distinguished from notes.list (listing) and notes.save (writing) by focusing on a single read with a revision payload.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need one note's content and its revision, especially before a notes.save call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the single-note-by-id scope makes the intended use unambiguous.

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