Get note comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries a low burden. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as ordering of comments, permissions required, or behavior when no comments exist, so it only meets the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No filler or redundant content, making it highly efficient.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't specify the return format, ordering, or edge cases, leaving some ambiguity about the exact behavior. The annotations cover safety, so the description's brevity is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 coverage is 100% (both athlete and note_id have descriptions), so the description need not explain parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in the baseline score.

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 'Get all comments on a calendar note' clearly identifies the verb (Get), the resource (comments), and the scope (calendar note), distinguishing it from the sibling tool tp_get_workout_comments which targets workout comments.

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 usage for calendar notes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like tp_get_workout_comments or mention any exclusions. The context of 'calendar note' provides some guidance, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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