ghl_object_get_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new information: the required OAuth scope (notes.readonly) and the v3 version header. That scope/version context is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the operation name and then the endpoint metadata. No filler; every line contributes practical information for the caller.

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 read-by-id tool with full annotation coverage, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema requirement, the description supplies the endpoint, version, and auth scope needed to invoke it correctly. Only the routing guidance to siblings is 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%, with both id and locationId documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (e.g., format of the note id or why locationId is required), but the schema already handles it.

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 title/verb+resource combination ('Get Note') plus the endpoint GET /notes/{id} makes the operation understandable, but the description offers no differentiation from siblings like ghl_object_search_notes or ghl_contact_get_note. An agent must rely on the tool name to disambiguate.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_notes (for discovery) or contact_get_note (contact-scoped notes). The description only supplies endpoint mechanics, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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