Onenote Get Page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses read-only semantics, explains that `bodyText` is a flattened reading view rather than storage format, clarifies what `bodyTextIncomplete: true` means, and details the conflict-guard contract around `lastModifiedDateTime`. This is exemplary transparency for a fetch operation.

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 opens with the core purpose and read-only guarantee, then front-loads the key parameter relationship. The subsequent caveats about flattened text, incomplete content, and the update conflict guard are dense but each earns its place because they prevent realistic misuse. The length is justified and well-organized.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what the output fields mean, what incompleteness signals, and how the result interacts with the sibling update tool. Error cases and authorization are not mentioned, but the behavioral and integration context provided is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only defines `pageId` as a required string with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating that `pageId` is the value returned by `onenote_search` and is used to address a single page. This adds useful source-level meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not elaborate on format or validation.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch full, read-only text detail') on a specific resource ('a single OneNote page') and identifies the exact identifier needed (`pageId`). It also explicitly declares that the operation never mutates state, which distinguishes it from write tools like `onenote_create_page` and `onenote_update_page`.

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 clearly ties `pageId` to the output of `onenote_search`, signaling where the identifier comes from, and explains how `lastModifiedDateTime` should be passed back to `onenote_update_page`. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context strongly implies the intended workflow among the sibling tools.

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