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. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior). It is minimal and does not enhance 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 very short (5 words) and lacks an action verb, making it a fragment rather than a proper sentence. While it is concise, it is not well-structured and could benefit from a full imperative or declarative statement.

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 that the tool retrieves HTML content and has 4 parameters but no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value and usage nuances. It is inadequate, as it does not explain what is returned or any important caveats.

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% and each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description 'The page's HTML content.' adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 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 is a noun phrase ('The page's HTML content.') rather than a verb phrase; it implies the tool retrieves content but does not explicitly state the action. While it is understandable, it could be clearer by starting with a verb like 'Gets'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list-onenote-pages' or other retrieval tools. Even the schema includes hints about pagination, but the description itself lacks any context for selection.

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