Get Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Retrieve a single note by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention what happens if the note is not found. The note about search_notes returning the same data slightly enhances transparency by describing data redundancy, but it stops short of full behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, follows with a direct usage instruction, and concludes with a helpful note distinguishing it from search_notes. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling tool. The phrase 'need the record' implies the return value, but it could be more explicit about the response format. Still, given the low complexity, this description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for note_id ('The NoteId to retrieve'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without needing extra compensation.

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 tool's function: 'Retrieve a single note by ID.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_notes by noting when to use get_note instead. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from sibling tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already have a NoteId and need the record.' It also gives an exclusion and alternative: 'Only use get_note when you have an ID but not the data' and notes that search_notes returns the same full data. This clearly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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