Get note

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the resource type ('calendar note'), but no additional details about return behavior or errors. This meets the baseline given annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence states the essential function with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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-by-ID tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It clearly identifies what the tool operates on and the primary parameter. A brief mention of the return value could improve completeness, but the absence is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already explains note_id and the athlete field's coach-only behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation load.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('calendar note'), and a retrieval criterion ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_list_notes (which lists notes) and tp_get_workout_note (which targets workout notes specifically), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving a single note when the ID is known, and the schema's required note_id reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tp_list_notes or note that this is for calendar notes only, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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