Convert card IDs to note IDs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing output cardinality (deduplicated unique note IDs, several cards per note), which is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of stating ordering or response shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the call-site guidance. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read-only conversion tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that with no output schema it could have stated the return shape explicitly (an array of note IDs) rather than only 'Returns the unique note IDs'.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already warns 'card IDs, not note IDs; get them from find_cards or notes_info'. The description adds no syntax, batching or size limits beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific transformation: it returns the unique note IDs that a set of card IDs belong to. The parenthetical 'one note can have several cards' explains the mapping's cardinality, which distinguishes it from lookup tools like cards_info and find_cards.

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 says to call it 'before note tools such as add_tags or update_note_fields when you only have card IDs', naming concrete downstream consumers. It does not state the inverse (e.g., use find_cards/notes_info when you already have note IDs), but the 'only have card IDs' condition effectively implies the boundary.

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