get_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns full note details including specific fields (title, content, parent record, creation metadata), which adds useful context beyond a basic read operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return details. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by specifics on the output, with no redundant or unnecessary information. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for basic use. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or response structure to fully guide the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the note_id parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('a single note'), and method ('by ID from Attio CRM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note or search_people. It specifies retrieving a single note rather than listing or creating, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like get_company or get_person for similar retrieval operations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a note ID or when this is appropriate over search functions. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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