Get Note

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the OAuth scope `contacts.readonly`, which is useful authorization context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe error behavior or response semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one short sentence containing the endpoint and scopes, with no filler or redundant explanations. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. This is appropriately concise.

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 simple two-parameter read-only GET, the combination of description, schema, and annotations is adequate to construct a valid request. It lacks an explicit return-value description, but that is a minor gap given no output schema and the simplicity of the operation. The main omission is guidance on choosing between this and the plural note-list sibling.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (`Note Id`, `Contact Id`), covering all parameters. The URL template reinforces the relationship between contactId and id, but the description adds no format or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies for 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 provides an HTTP GET endpoint and resource path `/contacts/{contactId}/notes/{id}`, which specifies a single note retrieval. This distinguishes it from the sibling `contacts_get_all_notes` by its singular resource and ID parameter, though it does not explicitly state that distinction. The phrasing is clear but closely mirrors the tool name.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus `contacts_get_all_notes` or other sibling getters. The description only states the operation and scopes, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from naming conventions. This is a no-guidance situation.

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