superchat_get_conversation_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'internal note' distinction and the explicit non-customer-message clarification, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like return format, errors, or permissions.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying exclusion earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 tool with strong annotations and fully described parameters, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe the return payload, but 'read one internal note' reasonably implies the note content is returned, and no output schema exists to require more.

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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions: note_id is 'an example returned by list_conversation_notes' and conversation_id is 'the conversation containing the note.' The tool description adds only 'by note ID,' so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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: 'Read one internal note from a conversation by note ID.' It also clarifies what the tool is not for with 'This does not retrieve a customer message,' which helps distinguish it from conversation-message retrieval tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—reading a single internal note by ID—and includes one exclusion ('does not retrieve a customer message'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_conversation_notes for finding note IDs or get_conversation for customer messages, leaving some routing to inference.

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