Get note by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the behavioral constraint that the note is located by both entity type and note ID, which is a useful scoping detail. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or other runtime traits beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with good annotations and an enum schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the essential operation and parameters. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the return value (e.g., the note object) would make it slightly more complete, but it is not critical given the tool's clear behavior.

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 clarifies that 'id' is the note ID and 'entity_type' scopes the lookup, but it does not elaborate on the enum values or the relationship further. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but not enough to fully cover the missing property 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 'Get a note by entity type and note ID' clearly specifies the verb (get), resource (note), and the required scoping (entity type and note ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_notes_list_by_entity by emphasizing a single note retrieval by ID, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for fetching a specific note when both entity_type and note ID are known, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like kommo_notes_list or kommo_notes_list_by_entity. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is present but implicit.

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