get_notebook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: page text is returned in rank order, the parent's note is the first page, and truncation at max_chars is reported back with an indication of which pages were dropped. Auth requirements and any rate limits are not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, none wasted, with the core action front-loaded in the first clause. The constraint about exactly one id follows immediately, and truncation behavior is last. Line wrapping splits sentences awkwardly but the content is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here. The description covers the two retrieval modes, the id-exclusivity rule, page ordering, and overflow handling, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps such as what happens if no id is supplied leave it just short of complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description meaningfully exceeds it by stating the mutual exclusivity of the three id parameters and explaining what parent_id resolves to (a project's or category's note). It also restates max_chars truncation semantics, which the schema covers only as a cap. Marginal added value over the schema, hence 4.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Read a notebook including the text of its pages, or a single page.' This is clearly distinct from list-style siblings such as get_notebooks, and the mention of page text signals the depth of retrieval. It stops short of naming a sibling it should be preferred over, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit invocation rule: 'Give exactly one of notebook_id, parent_id (project/category) and page_id,' which tells the agent how to choose among the identifier modes. The parent_id option is annotated with its meaning ('project/category'), clarifying when that route applies. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer search_notebooks or get_notebooks instead, so it is not a full 5.

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