read_meeting_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the Raises section lists specific ToolFailure error types (NOTE_NOT_FOUND / INVALID_NOTE_ID) and mentions that a list of available note_ids is included in error messages. It also describes the return fields (content, total_lines, truncated). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections. The purpose is front-loaded, each sentence contributes meaning (e.g., why range is useful, how line numbers are used), and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to fully explain return values, but it still does. It covers error cases, parameter semantics, and usage context. It is complete for a read-only tool with simple parameters and annotations already covering safety. The agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema: it explains that with_line_numbers is used for citation anchors in the meeting minutes grounding column, and clarifies that end_line omitted means read to the end. This is extra semantic value beyond mere restating, justifying a 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'read the original text of a synthetic meeting note by note_id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dummy_notes and extract_note_facts implicitly, but does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use the range parameters (to avoid wasting context on long notes, and to re-check only lines with warnings), but does not explicitly address when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools, so it partially meets the dimension but lacks exclusions.

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