rb209_advice_note_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does reveal a read-only GET that returns 'text' for a specific note, but it says nothing about response format, errors, or what happens when no note matches.

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?

A single concise sentence front-loads the exact endpoint and then states the scoping parameters. There is no filler or duplication.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter GET with no output schema, so the description's mention of 'advice note text' partially covers the return. It still leaves the exact response shape and lookup failure behavior unspecified, and the lack of output schema increases the need for those details.

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 schema already explains countryId and adviceNoteCode. The description only paraphrases that pairing, adding no extra constraints, formats, or default behavior.

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 names a concrete operation ('GET ... AdviceNoteText') and identifies the resource as 'individual advice note text' filtered by country ID and advice note code. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rb209_advice_note or rb209_advice_note_advice_notes, though 'individual' hints at a single-text lookup.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than the sibling advice-note tools, and no workflow context such as needing to look up an advice note code first. The only implied usage is that two identifiers are required, which is also visible in the schema.

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