Search pages

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by explaining that OneNote has no server-side full-text search, so content search fetches candidate pages in parallel and stops early. It discloses the performance impact and the 'narrow by section' strategy, which are valuable behavioral insights not present in the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and fast path. Every clause adds relevant information: speed, searchContent behavior, technical limitation, parallel fetching, early stop, and section narrowing. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input semantics, performance, and recommended usage. The only gap is the lack of detail about what the search results look like (e.g., page metadata), but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke 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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains why searchContent is slower, recommends section to narrow the search, and implies how scanLimit relates to early stopping. This adds value beyond the schema's raw parameter descriptions.

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 finds pages by title, with an optional content search. It uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Find pages by title') and differentiates from sibling tools like listPages and getPage by focusing on search behavior and performance trade-offs.

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 guidance on when to use the tool and how to configure it: title search is fast, content search is slower, and passing a section narrows the search dramatically. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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