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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering for the global listing, optional search filtering, and the specific fields returned (id, title, created/last-modified times). It does not mention pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then usage variants, return contents, and the intended workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

Given a simple read-only tool with three optional parameters, a fully self-documenting schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers behavior, return fields, ordering, and the use case, leaving no important gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents top, search, and section_id thoroughly. The description restates the section_id vs. omit behavior and mentions search filtering, but it adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List OneNote pages (Microsoft 365 notes)'. It further clarifies scope by describing both section-scoped listing and notebook-wide recent pages, and distinguishes itself from content-reading tools by framing the tool as the step 'before reading their 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?

The description gives clear conditional guidance: pass section_id for a section, omit it for recent pages across notebooks, and optionally filter by search. It also states the intended use case, finding notes before reading content, though it does not explicitly name alternate tools like get_page_content or list_sections as exclusions.

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