get_notes_by_id

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds little beyond what is given. The 'GET' method and 'Get a note' largely repeat these annotations. It does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as response format (though an output schema exists) or potential quirks.

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 highly concise, with no filler. The purpose is stated upfront, and the parameter definition is clearly separated. Including the endpoint path is somewhat redundant but not harmful. It efficiently communicates essential information without excess.

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 GET-by-ID with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, given the large set of sibling tools, including related note operations like get_notes_by_id_item and delete_notes_by_id, it lacks any differentiation or indication of when to use which. This could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It introduces that the 'id' parameter can be either an id or a slug, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Id' label. However, this is minimal; it does not explain how slugs are formatted or provide examples, leaving gaps in interpretation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a note', and includes the HTTP method and path. It effectively communicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_notes_by_id_item, which could be confusing, though the tool name itself is fairly unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_notes_by_id_item, delete_notes_by_id, or even listing notes. There is no mention of prerequisites, authentication, or typical use cases. The description merely states the operation without contextual usage advice.

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