Read an encrypted note

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, it discloses important behavior: decryption happens locally with the key from the link, static.md only sees ciphertext, and returned user-written content is marked as untrusted data. It also adds the Pro-plan requirement, which is exactly the kind of context annotations do not cover.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the return value first, then the security model, then the trust marking and plan requirement. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, how decryption works, the trust level of the returned content, and the Pro requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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%, so both the note link/id field and the optional 8-emoji key field are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the key comes from the link but does not add syntax or edge-case details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the markdown of an end-to-end encrypted static.md note, decrypted locally. That is precise enough for an agent to distinguish this read operation from the create/update siblings without opening the schema.

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 the tool is for reading an existing encrypted note and notes that it needs Pro, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the create_encrypted_note or update_encrypted_note alternatives.

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