anki_get_notes_info

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavior: unknown IDs return empty entries rather than errors, field values are raw HTML, and markdown output truncates values unless response_format='json'. These are concrete details not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: the first states the purpose, the second covers return values and the unknown-ID edge case, and the third explains output truncation. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: it states inputs, outputs, edge cases, and formatting options. There are no significant gaps for an agent to be misled.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides — it only references response_format in a context that the schema already covers. No extra meaning is added.

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 opens with 'Fetch full details for the given note ids' — a specific verb and resource — then enumerates exactly what details are returned (model, tags, field contents as HTML, card IDs). This sets it apart from sibling tools like anki_find_notes (which finds IDs) and anki_get_model_fields (which gets a model's fields).

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 makes it clear this is used when you already have note IDs and want their full details, especially given the schema note that IDs 'typically come from anki_find_notes.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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