Get a note

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds the meaningful detail that the full content (not a summary) is returned, which helps distinguish it from list/search results, but says nothing about missing-note behavior or return size.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though terse to the point of omitting needed context.

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, so the description should ideally indicate what fields/format the note content takes; 'full content' gives only a partial picture. For a simple single-param getter, it is minimally adequate but does not fill the gaps left by the undocumented parameter and absent output schema.

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% and the single 'id' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description does not clarify whether the id is a note identifier, does not state format, and leaves the agent to infer it from the tool name alone.

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 ('Show') and resource ('research note') plus scope ('full content of one'), so the agent knows it's a single-item content retrieval. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_source or search, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search, list_notes, or get_source. The phrase 'one research note' implies single-item lookup, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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