get_note_v1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that the tool now delegates to the v2 endpoint, lists the V1-only fields that are no longer returned (followers[], embedded comments[], features[].importance), documents a field rename (displayUrl → links.html), and gives a deprecation/removal horizon. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the DEPRECATED marker and the recommended replacement, which is the right ordering. It is fairly dense with migration detail, but nearly every clause (field removals, field rename, removal date) is actionable for an agent and not filler.

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 deprecated alias of a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it maps to, what responses omitted, how fields map, and when it disappears. Nothing material is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as a Note UUID. The description adds nothing about the id parameter itself, only the endpoint path shape, so the baseline of 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 operation (retrieve a note by id) and immediately frames it as an alias for the sibling get_note, so an agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs. It also names the underlying endpoint (v2 GET /notes/{id}), which reinforces the resource.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is DEPRECATED and directs the agent to use get_note instead, and explains the only reason to keep using it (backwards compatibility during V1→V2 migration). It also states the removal timeline, giving an unambiguous when/when-not condition.

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