Read current follow-up

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: closed records are hidden by default, history remains intact, legacy prose is not parsed, and source freshness is not revalidated. No annotation is contradicted; the openWorldHint=false applies within the canonical-note scope, while the caveat warns about commitments outside that scope.

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 dense sentences with the purpose first, followed by behavioral limits and routing guidance. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value description is unnecessary. The definition covers scope, default filtering, hidden history, legacy parsing limits, freshness, and the correct sibling for alternative use, making it fully actionable.

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%, so the description carries the parameter context. 'Explicit canonical notes' defines what note_paths should reference, and 'Completed/cancelled records are hidden by default' matches include_closed's default. It does not name the parameters, but their names are self-explanatory and the semantics are reasonably covered.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Read latest structured follow-up revisions in explicit canonical notes.' It also distinguishes the tool from get_note, which handles legacy notes and original evidence, so an agent can select it correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It explicitly defines when to use the tool (structured follow-ups in canonical notes) and when not to ('Use get_note for legacy notes and original evidence'). The caveat that absence is not proof adds a clear decision rule against over-interpreting empty results.

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