Onenote Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it documents `[invalid_request]` validation, the default and hard maximum for `limit`, clamping behavior for over-max values, rejection of `<= 0`, and empty-result semantics (`[]`, not an error). This gives an agent concrete expectations before calling.

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 dense but compact, front-loading the core purpose and then providing only high-value behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or filler content.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers required input, validation errors, default and boundary behavior, and the empty-result case. Even without annotations, it fully prepares an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by fully explaining both parameters: `query` must be non-empty, and `limit` is optional with default 50, hard max 200, clamping over-max, and rejection of invalid values. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Full-text search over OneNote page content' and identifies the underlying implementation via `FindPages`. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like onenote_get_page and onenote_list_sections, so an agent understands the tool's unique purpose.

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 context: this is for full-text content search, not listing sections or fetching a specific page. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the search-focused framing is sufficient to guide selection among the OneNote siblings.

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