notes_get

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the required Automation permission for Notes and the fact that the body is returned as HTML rather than plain text.

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?

Front-loaded core action in one sentence, with version and permission metadata tucked into a compact bracket. No wasted prose, though the bracketed metadata is slightly noisy relative to the semantic content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it helpfully signals the HTML format and required permission. An agent has enough to call it correctly, with only the sibling-routing guidance absent.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or origin, so this sits at the baseline 3.

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 and resource: 'Read note body as HTML', plus the mechanism (native Notes scripting interface). It's distinguishable from notes_create/notes_append by naming a read of the body, but it never explicitly contrasts with notes_search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer notes_get over notes_search or any other alternative. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the returned format.

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