get_note

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about return behavior (full note body) and explicitly documents a limitation ('does not accept titles'), which goes beyond 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second sentence gives the exact context needed to avoid common mistakes without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

A single-parameter read operation with annotations, a full output schema, and clear sibling differentiation. The description covers all functional details needed to invoke the tool correctly; nothing important is missing.

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 parameter description already says 'Id of the note, as returned by list_notes.' The tool description reinforces that note_id comes from list_notes or create_note and that titles won't work, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Read one note in full by `id`.' It names the resource and the mechanism, and the first sentence identifies the tool as the way to get a note's complete body, distinguishing it from list previews.

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 explicitly says to use this tool whenever a note's complete body is needed, notes that list_notes previews are truncated at 120 characters, and clarifies that IDs come from list_notes or create_note and that titles are not accepted. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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