hires_get_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a note with author and visibility metadata, and explains the effect of the include parameter. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or the exact response structure, which are relevant for a read operation.

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 two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value: the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides a key usage tip. There is no redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It informs the agent of the resource, the additional data available, and how to request it. It lacks only a brief note on error handling or return format, but given the simplicity, this is not a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'include=user' adds no new semantics beyond the schema's own description of the include parameter ('Include related resources, e.g. 'user' for author details'). The description does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single note'), and further specifies what it returns ('author and visibility metadata'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hires_list_notes, which retrieves multiple notes, and from mutation tools like create/update/delete.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Get a single note') and provides concrete usage guidance for the optional 'include' parameter ('Use include=user to load author details'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or offer exclusions, such as 'use hires_list_notes for multiple notes,' which would have strengthened the guidance.

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