Calendar Get Notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation that returns subject and body, but it does not describe behavior when no match is found, when multiple matches exist, or whether matching is exact.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the operation, the lookup keys, and the return contents.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the core calling contract. However, it does not disambiguate this tool from closely related siblings like calendar_get_event or calendar_search, and it omits edge-case behavior that an agent might need to know before invoking it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters as the matching criteria ('date+subject') and identifying the output fields ('subject + body'). It adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of defining exact-match semantics or date-normalization 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 states a specific operation—resolving a single note-appointment by date and subject—and mentions what is returned ('full detail (subject + body)'). It is clear enough to be useful, though the compound term 'note-appointment' is unusual and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from calendar_get_event.

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 phrase 'matching date+subject' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific existing note-appointment when both lookup values are known. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like calendar_search or calendar_get_event, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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