get_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: a prompt-injection warning that the note body may contain third-party instructions which must not be executed, plus the notion of DOM vs. summary extraction scope.

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?

Two short sentences, so it is not bloated, but the second clause ('标注 DOM 或摘要提取范围') is ambiguous rather than informative and the security warning — the most valuable content — is buried at the end.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, yet the description supplies the critical prompt-injection caution and the extraction-scope concept. It remains incomplete on what is actually returned and how the three inputs shape the result.

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 0% for three parameters. The description indirectly signals the platform dimension ('携程' vs 'Trip Moments', matching the ctrip/trip enum) but never explains url, platform, or the account parameter (default, pattern) — it does not compensate for the coverage 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 clear verb (读取) plus the resource (携程笔记/游记或 Trip Moments 详情链接), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes and search_destinations. The trailing clause about annotating DOM/summary extraction scope is cryptic and muddies an otherwise specific purpose statement.

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 only implied by '详情链接' — an agent can infer this fetches one note's detail, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., list_notes for enumeration, prepare_note before publishing). No guidance connects it to the surrounding toolset.

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