note_get_by_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation fetches, implying read-only behavior, but does not explain what 'filtered store query' means, whether token scoping applies, what happens on missing IDs, or any side effects. This is too thin.

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 short and front-loaded, but 'resolved through a filtered store query' is vague and potentially confusing. Brevity is good, but here it sacrifices necessary clarity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, two undocumented required parameters, and many similar siblings, this description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavior on not-found, and guidance on how this differs from note_get.

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 description adds no meaning to the 'id' or 'token' parameters beyond their string types. The token is presumably an auth token, but that is never 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 clearly states the operation ('Fetch a single note by id') and the resource ('note'). It is distinct from list/search tools, but does not differentiate it from the sibling note_get, which likely does the same thing directly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus note_get, note_search, note_get_scoped, or note_get_by_token_scope. The phrase 'resolved through a filtered store query' hints at a different mechanism, but no conditions or alternatives are stated.

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