get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'GET /notes/{id}' and 'Retrieve' convey a read-only fetch, which is useful, but there is no mention of response shape, auth or error behavior, or default inclusions/exclusions beyond what the schema already states.

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 one short sentence with an endpoint parenthetical and no filler. The most important scope information ('by id') is front-loaded, and every word 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 straightforward GET with well-documented optional parameters, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description never addresses return content or any special behavior, leaving a noticeable but not severe 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 75%, and the schema already documents extraQuery, includeReactions, and includeThreadedReplies in detail. The description only adds 'by id' for the otherwise undocumented id parameter, which is marginal, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('note'), and the selection key ('by id'), and it adds the HTTP endpoint for precision. The 'by id' qualifier distinguishes it from list_note/create_note/update_note siblings even without naming them explicitly.

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 'by id' gives clear invocation context: use this when you have a note identifier and want a single note. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the id qualifier is sufficient for basic routing among the sibling tools.

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