Read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only that the payload includes frontmatter and body, which is modest additional context; it says nothing about error handling for unresolvable names.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (count, resource, returned fields) carries information.

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 defining return values and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description needs little more. It is adequate, though it omits any mention of resolution failures for unknown names or aliases.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully (names, aliases, or vault paths) at 100% coverage. The description's 'one or more' loosely mirrors the schema's array/maxItems=20 but adds no real semantics 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (notes), plus scope (one or more) and what is returned (frontmatter + body). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the 'search' sibling, which an agent might otherwise reach for when it wants filtered retrieval.

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 guidance on when to use this versus 'search' or 'context', nor any note about behavior for missing or ambiguous names. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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