get-onenote-page-content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context—it does not mention how the content is returned, potential large payloads (only hinted in a parameter description), or any other runtime behavior. Since the description contributes nothing beyond annotations, it scores at the floor.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about the tool's action and scope. While it is front-loaded and free of fluff, it fails to 'earn its place' because it conveys almost no useful content to an agent.

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?

With four parameters, one required, no output schema, and only basic read-only annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context. It does not explain what the HTML content represents, how it is structured, potential errors, or when it is appropriate to use. The tool's behavior is almost entirely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not elaborate on any parameters, but the schema provides detailed descriptions for each (e.g., onenotePageId has a clear explanation of usage). Thus, the description does not need to compensate, and a baseline score is appropriate.

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 'The page's HTML content.' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Retrieves the HTML content of a OneNote page'), and it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like list-onenote-pages or get-onenote-page. An agent would have to infer that this tool fetches HTML 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context (e.g., needing a specific page's content vs. listing pages), no exclusions, and no mention of preference over other retrieval tools. The lack of any usage direction leaves the agent without decision support.

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