Get note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: multiple title matches are reported as candidates rather than silently guessing, and password-protected notes fail with a clear error. This exceeds the annotation baseline and could reach 5, but does not describe any pagination/limitations or the shape of candidate reporting, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences pack a verb+resource statement, the exclusive-or constraint, matching behavior, and failure behavior with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 read tool with readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the main calling constraints and edge cases (ambiguous titles, protected notes, rendering formats). It does not specify the output structure, but there is no output schema and the description does mention the formats; a 4 is fair, with 5 withheld only because the candidate-reporting format is not described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description compensates by explaining the mutual-exclusion constraint ('Exactly one of id or title must be given'), the case-insensitivity of title matching, and the behavior on ambiguous titles. These add real meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource — 'Fetch one note by id or by exact title' — and lists the return formats (markdown, plaintext, or raw html). It distinguishes itself from sibling list/search tools by showing it returns a single note identified by id or title.

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?

Explicitly states the selection condition: exactly one of id or title must be given bracket clarity? The description says the title match is case-insensitive and reports candidates instead of guessing when ambiguous; it also names failure on password-protected notes. This guides when and how to use the tool vs. alternatives like list_notes/search_notes, which are referenced by the parameter descriptions.

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