get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that notes can be very long and that max_length truncates output. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely) or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. A 3 is appropriate as it covers the main behavior but lacks depth.

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 structured with a warning, then args/returns sections. It is relatively concise but includes an emoji and some redundancy (e.g., 'consider using search_notes() first'). Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly streamlined.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description does not need to detail return values further. It covers the operation, parameters, and a helpful usage hint. The tool is simple, and the description is sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: dataset as a dataset name like 'mimic-iv-note', note_id as from search_notes or list_patient_notes, and max_length as optional truncation. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property types.

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 explicitly states it retrieves the full text of a specific clinical note, with a clear verb (Retrieve) and resource (clinical note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes and list_patient_notes by focusing on the retrieval of full text for a specific note ID.

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 provides practical guidance: warns about long notes, suggests using search_notes first, and recommends using max_length to truncate. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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