See what is around a result

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 and the 'Read-only' sentence partly repeats it. The description earns credit for disclosing the payload shape — adjacent sections plus same-day notes — and the hard prerequisite of a valid result id, which annotations and schema do not convey. It stops short of saying what happens with a stale or invalid id, or how many same-day notes are returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then the constraint. Nothing is padded beyond the one-word 'Read-only' line that slightly duplicates the annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return content, the usage condition, the non-search exclusion and the required input — everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the property already documented as 'A result id from search_notes'. The description's 'it needs a result id' restates that provenance rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: shows the sections before and after a given result plus other notes from the same day. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_notes by saying it does not search, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when a result looks right but you need the context around it') with examples of what that looks like, and a clear exclusion plus prerequisite ('it does not search: it needs a result id'). It never mentions the sibling open_result, which is the obvious alternative if the agent just wants the full result rather than surrounding context, so routing 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.