read_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'paginada' adds a genuinely useful behavioral signal (content may be truncated and require offset/max_chars looping), but the description doesn't explain default/maximum page size, truncation semantics, or what a partial read returns.

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 short sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded; the terseness is efficient but leaves little room for the pagination nuance to be explained.

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 4-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits when-to-use routing and how pagination should be driven, which are the only things structured fields don't carry.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including offset semantics and the NLM_MAX_CHARS default. The description adds only the implicit notion of pagination, so baseline 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 clear verb+resource: reads a full note, with the qualifier that it is paginated. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like read_source, read_report, or get_notebook, which read other content types, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alternatives (read_source, read_report, list_notes), no preconditions, and no note about needing the IDs first — that hint lives only in the schema parameter descriptions, not the tool description.

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