Read a note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the transcript is omitted due to size, meeting notes expose transcript_segment_count plus a hint, and include_enhanced controls an alternative content version. This helps the agent understand what to expect from the response.

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 with no filler: primary action is first, the important transcript caveat follows, and the optional parameter is explained last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the transcript limitation, and the enhanced-content option. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it does not describe error behavior for nonexistent ids, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that the note is fetched by id and that include_enhanced triggers the AI-cleaned version. It does not repeat exact types or defaults, but the schema itself documents those, so the description adds the missing semantic meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Read one note by id', and lists the exact fields returned: title, folder, timestamps, content body. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_note_transcript by stating the transcript is never included.

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 clear this tool is for reading a single note by id and that the transcript is not included, pointing users toward get_note_transcript for that content. It does not explicitly contrast with list_notes or search_notes, but the by-id scoping is strong enough to imply those are for discovery rather than single-note retrieval.

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