note_admin_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cross-organization admin behavior and access restriction, which are meaningful. However, it does not describe authentication consequences, permission bypass, or error/return behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action, scope, and access restriction are all delivered efficiently and front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with two required string parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it. It could be more complete by naming a regular alternative and explicitly stating expected returns, but the essential selection criteria are present.

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 must compensate. It gives meaning to the 'id' parameter via 'by id', but leaves the 'token' parameter almost entirely implicit. Admin/support-only usage hints at token relevance, but no format, source, or role requirements are stated.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Get any note by id, across organizations.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like note_get and note_get_scoped by emphasizing cross-organization scope and admin/support-only access.

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?

'Admin/support use only' provides a clear who-can-use exclusion, and 'across organizations' clarifies when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name an alternative like note_get for normal scoped access, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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