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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful behaviors: the Authorization Bearer requirement and that the result is null when no note exists. It omits read-only framing, error/permission-failure behavior, and any rate-limit or pagination context.

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 compact sentence with the subject (current user's note), the scope (specified facility), and the null case plus auth note all front-loaded; nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the empty-result case, and the auth prerequisite. Only sibling routing (list_notes/get_facility) is missing, which is a modest gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines facility_id as 機構編號. The description confirms the ID scopes the lookup to a single facility, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema — correct baseline 3.

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+scope: 讀取 (read) the current logged-in user's 筆記 (note) for a specified 機構 (facility). This is clearly narrower than list_notes or upsert_note, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by '對指定機構' — call it when you need one user's note tied to a single facility. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to list_notes for enumerating multiple notes, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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