Get the full OneNote outline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context without contradicting them. It discloses that the call returns everything in ONE request, includes nested sections, and provides readable paths. However, it could further mention whether results are live or cached, though this is not strictly necessary given the simple read-only nature.

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 three sentences long and highly front-loaded with the 'START HERE' directive. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, the format of output, and why it should be preferred over alternatives. No filler or repetition of annotations or schema.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's scope, output format (IDs and readable paths), and relationship to siblings. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, so the description fills the remaining gaps effectively.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (includePageCounts with a description), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not mention this parameter, but since the schema is fully self-explanatory, no additional semantic enhancement is needed. The description's focus on the overall behavior rather than parameter details is acceptable.

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 begins with 'START HERE for anything structural' and clearly states the tool returns every notebook, section group, and section in one call. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as listNotebooks and listSections by emphasizing it covers the full hierarchy in a single request.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'START HERE for anything structural' and 'Use this instead of chaining listNotebooks then listSections'. It explains the benefits (one request vs several, correctly includes nested sections), giving clear usage context without needing to consult alternatives.

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