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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real value: 4,000-character chunking, a next_cursor continuation token, and the has_more=false terminal condition. The only shortfall is that ownership ('linked account') is asserted without saying what happens on a foreign or missing ID.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return contract. 'It does not modify the note' is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint but costs only a clause.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the chunking and pagination contract an agent needs to loop correctly, which is genuinely helpful. Only the undocumented timezone parameter keeps this from being complete.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It explains note_id (exact ID) and cursor indirectly via next_cursor/has_more, but the timezone parameter — one of three — is never mentioned, leaving a real gap.

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+resource with a scoping constraint: reads one note by its exact ID. The 'exact ID' phrasing implicitly separates it from the search-family siblings (search_notes, linko_search), but no 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?

The phrase 'by its exact ID' implies the caller must already hold an identifier and should use a search tool otherwise, but that alternative is never stated. The exclusion 'does not modify the note' clarifies scope but is not usage routing.

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