Get a OneDrive item

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that the pre-authenticated download URL is deliberately not returned and listing the metadata fields that are. It could still say more about error cases or permission expectations, but the read-only annotations lower the bar.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: the first establishes what and which fields, the second covers addressing mode, and the third handles an important caveat plus alternatives. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 metadata tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it lists the return fields, explains how to address the item, and clarifies the notable missing field (download URL) with fallback tools. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing the schema.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity of itemId and path, but that constraint is already present in the schema. No new parameter-level meaning is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads the metadata of one OneDrive file or folder' and enumerates exactly which fields are returned. It also distinguishes itself from content/download tools by noting the download URL is intentionally absent and pointing to files_read_text and files_create_link.

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?

It states the tool is for reading metadata of a single item, explains the addressing constraint ('by itemId or by path, not both'), and explicitly names alternatives when the pre-authenticated download URL is expected: files_read_text for contents and files_create_link for sharing. This gives an agent clear when/when-not guidance.

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