onenote_extract_insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope of extraction (specific insight categories) but does not disclose potential return formats, performance characteristics, or edge cases. This is comparable to the get_calls example where the description adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the extracted items and the scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and clear annotations. The description covers the core purpose and scope. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not indicate the format of the extracted insights (e.g., grouped by page, flat list), which would improve completeness. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (start_id, max_pages) are already described. The description mentions 'scoped set of OneNote pages', which aligns with start_id, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and lists precise content types (action items, owners, due dates, decisions, risks, blockers, open questions) from a scoped set of OneNote pages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, get_page, and export, which operate on raw content or navigation.

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 implies when to use it (when you need structured insights from pages) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like onenote_search or onenote_knowledge_digest. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool names, so usage guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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