Retrieve A Note By Id In The Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, which is standard for retrieval. It also includes the API endpoint and version, but does not elaborate on response structure or potential errors. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 succinct—five sentences covering purpose, usage, return type, required params, and API details. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers retrieval and API details. However, it does not address the optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) that are present in the schema, which are unusual for a single-note retrieval. It also uses 'Estimating records' while the tool name says 'note', causing slight inconsistency. The return value is only described as 'JSON object' without structure, but no output schema is provided.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It omits mention of optional pagination parameters (page, per_page), which could mislead an LLM to ignore them.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single note by ID in the project, specifying the verb 'retrieve', resource 'note by Id', and context 'in the project'. It differentiates from siblings like retrieve_all_notes and a v2.0 variant by focusing on a single note retrieval.

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 provides basic usage guidance: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Estimating records by its identifier.' It lists required parameters and API endpoint, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., listing tools or the v2.0 version).

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