onenote_get_page

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it returns 'title and text content (flattened from the page XML)', which informs the agent that the output is a simplified text representation, not raw XML. This is valuable and goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 one sentence plus a short supplementary sentence, both concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary detail while delivering the core purpose, output, and ID-acquisition method. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns (title and text content), and how to get the required page_id. It also benefits from annotations that cover safety. No critical information is missing.

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 already fully describes the page_id parameter (OneNote page object ID), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining where to obtain the ID (from onenote_hierarchy or onenote_search), which helps the agent understand the expected format and source. It also implicitly indicates that the parameter is a required identifier, aligning with the 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('OneNote page'), and explicitly differentiates it from siblings by noting that page IDs are obtained from onenote_hierarchy or onenote_search. It also implies a read-only operation, distinguishing it from mutation tools like create/update/delete.

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 clear context: it is for reading a page's title and text content. It also directs users to get page IDs from onenote_hierarchy or onenote_search, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if the user needs full-fidelity content or images, onenote_export might be more appropriate), but this is a minor gap.

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