read_meeting_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond those: it specifies the return structure (NoteContentResponse with content, total_lines, truncated), error behavior (ToolFailure with NOTE_NOT_FOUND / INVALID_NOTE_ID, and includes a list of valid note_ids), and the purpose of with_line_numbers for citation anchors. The synthetic nature of the data is also disclosed. This goes well beyond annotations and helps the agent predict side effects and outcomes accurately.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, a contextual paragraph, then labeled Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is not bloated, but it duplicates parameter details that already exist in the schema, which adds minor redundancy. However, the structure is logical and front-loaded enough that an agent can quickly grasp the core purpose before diving into details. The redundancy does not significantly harm readability.

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 tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use the range feature, parameter semantics, return structure, and error handling. It also discloses the synthetic nature of the data and why line numbers matter (for citations). Since the output schema exists and is likely detailed, the description's summary of return fields is sufficient. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter already has a clear description in the input schema. The description's Args block largely repeats that information (note_id, start_line, end_line, with_line_numbers) with only minor additions, such as explaining with_line_numbers is for citation anchors—which is already present in the schema description. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline of 3 for tools with high schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'note_id에 해당하는 합성 회의 메모 원문을 읽습니다' (reads the original text of the synthetic meeting memo for the given note_id). It names the verb (read), the resource (synthetic meeting memo), and even characterizes the memo as synthetic, which distinguishes it from real data. The mention of line-range reading further clarifies a specific capability that separates it from straightforward read tools. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 a concrete usage scenario: '근거 검사에서 경고가 난 줄만 다시 확인할 때도 이 범위 인자를 씁니다' (use the range argument when re-checking only lines that raised warnings in grounding checks). This tells an agent when the range parameters are relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool over siblings like list_dummy_notes or extract_note_facts. The schema for note_id also hints at list_dummy_notes as the source of IDs, so usage context is adequately covered even if not stated in the description itself.

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