Read one context note in full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: a null body signals truncation and is 'never empty', which is the signal an agent needs to distinguish an unreached note from a legitimately blank one, plus the routing rule that entries belong to get_task.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core statement of what is returned leads. The elliptical phrasing ('a note the briefing's budget did not reach') costs a little parse time, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what comes back (the whole body) and what a null body means, which is the main return-value question for this tool. Missing only edge behavior such as unknown/unauthorized context_id, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 both `model` and `context_id` are already documented in the schema, including where context_id comes from. The description only echoes the search-hit provenance and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific resource and scope: 'The whole body of one context note', contrasted with the truncated bodies returned by get_context's briefing and the snippets returned by search. It implicitly separates itself from those siblings via the 'budget did not reach' and 'search snippet' framing, though it never names get_context or search directly, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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?

Two concrete triggers are given: a note whose body is null because the briefing's budget truncated it, and a search snippet you need the rest of. It also routes the adjacent case correctly with 'Entries are read with get_task', telling the agent which sibling handles entry-type content. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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