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

No annotations are provided, but 'Read' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description specifies what is returned (raw frontmatter and markdown body). It does not expand on side effects or output format, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented. For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, the one-line description sufficiently explains what is read. Some explicit sibling differentiation would improve completeness, but the raw vs. standard distinction is implied.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. While 'path' is self-explanatory from the schema, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail by explaining how the note is identified.

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 clearly states the tool reads the raw frontmatter and markdown body for a note. The verb 'Read' and resource 'raw frontmatter and markdown body' are specific, and 'raw' distinguishes it from the likely processed read_note sibling.

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 a use case through the word 'raw' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over read_note. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, though the raw vs. processed distinction provides some guidance.

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