get_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: conflict resolution (note_id wins), case-insensitive title matching, and fallback to most recent if multiple same title. Could mention error handling (e.g., 404 if not found) but output schema might cover that.

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?

Two short sentences plus a bullet. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value: retrieval method, parameter precedence, fuzzy alternative. No wasted words.

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 get-by-id/title tool, description covers purpose, parameter disambiguation, and when to use sibling tool. Output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. Complete and self-contained.

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%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: note_id wins if both given, title is case-insensitive, and if multiple notes share title, most recently updated is returned. These enrich what the schema alone provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve a single note by its ID or exact title' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling search_notes by mentioning 'fuzzy matching' and from list_recent_notes by indicating single retrieval.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'Provide note_id OR title (note_id wins if both given)'. Also advises alternative: 'Use search_notes for fuzzy matching'. No other sibling tools are appropriate for this exact retrieval.

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