Get a citation for a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does state the return shape and that this is a read-style lookup. It does not mention what happens when the slug does not resolve, whether matching is exact-only, or any rate/permission considerations.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then gives the rationale. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents and intent. It is nearly complete; only failure behavior and sibling routing are left unspecified.

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 single parameter is documented as 'Exact title or slug to cite'. The description's phrase 'for a note' reinforces that the slug identifies a note, but adds no format or matching details beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the canonical citation ... for a note') and even enumerates the returned fields (title, description, URL). It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, get_page, which also fetches note content.

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?

'so an answer can attribute the XKnow source' implies the trigger condition (attribution needed in an answer), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_page for full content.

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