Get note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no error/not-found behavior, no scope or permission notes — so it neither helps nor contradicts.

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 the retrieval behavior front-loaded and no filler. The leading "Get note." largely duplicates the title, a minor redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the minimum is met: what it does and how to address the note. It is silent on the return shape, missing-note behavior, and note scoping, which an agent would benefit from given there is no output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including UUID format and pattern, so the schema carries the full burden. The description merely restates that lookup is by noteId, adding no new semantics such as format examples or scope constraints.

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?

"Retrieves a single note by `noteId`" names a specific verb and resource and the word "single" implicitly contrasts with list_notes in the sibling set. It falls short of explicitly routing the agent away from list_notes or list_note_feed, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only when-to-use signal is the note that creation is done via POST /v1/note, which is a thin and slightly off-register pointer given a create_note sibling exists. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_note over list_note_feed or what to do if the note is not found.

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