Read a note

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

Goes beyond the annotations by specifying the exact return shape ('# Title', blank line, then text) and the unknown-id error behavior, and confirms read-only. The 'Read-only' sentence and the unknown-id error both duplicate what the annotations and schema already declare, so it adds less new context than a fully independent disclosure would.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the workflow hint, return shape, and error case. Minor waste: 'Read-only' and the unknown-id error restate annotation/schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining the return value and does so concretely (Markdown with title heading). A one-parameter read tool needs nothing further for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented there, including how to derive it from list_notes output and the minimum of 1. The description's 'by its id' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one note ... in full, by its id') and scopes the data source ('the owner's planner in Sara'), which distinguishes it from sibling readers like list_notes and search_library. An agent can tell exactly what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Use list_notes first to find the id,' naming the sibling that produces the required input. It also names the failure condition (unknown id returns an error), so the agent knows when the call will not succeed.

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