note_get_by_token_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: notes are fetched read-only based on the token's scope claim rather than an explicit org parameter. It does not mention token validity, error behavior, pagination, or response shape, but this is minimally adequate for a read-only get operation.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence reinforces the token-based scoping behavior and is not filler, but it is somewhat redundant with the first sentence, preventing a perfect score.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides enough information to understand the core call: pass a token and optionally override the scope. However, without an output schema or annotations, missing details such as return shape, error behavior, and how this differs from note_get_scoped leave moderate gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: the optional scope parameter is documented, while the required token parameter has no schema description. The description adds meaning to token by explaining that it carries the intended scope, but it does not elaborate on the optional scope override semantics or token format, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 clear action ('Get notes') and resource ('organization indicated by the token's scope claim'), so an agent understands what the tool returns and how the target organization is determined. However, it does not differentiate it from closely named siblings like note_get_scoped or note_get_by_query, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 implies the intended use case: retrieve notes when the token's scope claim selects the organization. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool over note_get_scoped, note_get, or note_get_by_query, and it provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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