Read one journal entry in full

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description warns that the response is the longest prose the server returns and that it is carried inside an explicit untrusted fence. This adds meaningful security and size context that annotations do not provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and source, and the second adds a relevant behavioral caveat. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter read operation with an output schema available, the description covers where the id comes from, what is returned (untruncated full note), and an important trust boundary. No essential calling context 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 already describes the id as from a listing tool and not hand-built. The description adds specificity by naming list_journals as the origin of the id, reinforcing the intended source 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 operation (get the complete note for an id) and names the exact source tool (list_journals), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_event and the journal mutation tools. 'Untruncated' clarifies that the result is the full entry, not a list row.

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?

It clearly indicates the id comes from list_journals, which tells an agent to obtain an id from the listing tool before calling this one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but for a simple single-parameter read, the context is sufficient.

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