Get a note

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It adds real behavioral value instead: the 1500-character truncation under "concise" and the extra created/updated times under "detailed" are things an agent cannot learn from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the format nuance and return shape. Slightly repetitive of the schema's enum wording, but nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this is nearly complete; return structure is appropriately left to the output schema. The only gaps are edge behavior such as a missing or invalid id and whether a truncated text is flagged in the payload.

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 description's explanation of "concise" versus "detailed" nearly duplicates the enum's own schema description. With both parameters already documented in the schema, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds emphasis but no new semantics such as whether truncation is signaled in the response.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("fetches one note by id") and enumerates what comes back (title, text, linked records), which clearly separates it from heliyos_notes_list. It never names the sibling tools explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-note read versus heliyos_notes_list, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or what to do if the id is unknown. No exclusions, prerequisites, or error-path guidance are given.

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