Get note details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds two genuinely new facts: the exact shape of the returned records (including per-field value and order, plus generated card IDs) and that unknown IDs yield empty objects rather than errors, which is exactly the kind of edge-case an agent needs.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and return payload, then closes with the unknown-ID behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so field by field, plus the not-found behavior, which is sufficient for a one-parameter read tool. Minor gaps remain around batch limits and result ordering relative to the input array.

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 spells out that these are note IDs, not card IDs, and where to source them. The description adds no format or batching detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clear verb and resource ("Returns details for the given note IDs") and enumerates the returned fields, which separates it from list-style siblings like find_notes. It does not explicitly contrast with cards_info or cards_to_notes, but the note-vs-card distinction is implied by the field list.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears in the description. The useful routing hint (get IDs from find_notes or cards_to_notes) lives only in the schema, so the description itself never tells an agent how to obtain inputs or when to prefer cards_info instead.

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