onenote_health_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by listing what the audit produces (duplicate candidates, stale pages, etc.) and highlights 'explainable confidence scores,' which is useful beyond schema/annotations. It does not mention operational details like pagination or performance, but with annotations covering the read-only nature, this is acceptable.

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 all major audit categories without filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's scope. It is dense but not verbose, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or obvious fluff.

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 an audit tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of enumerating the types of results (duplicate candidates, stale pages, etc.) and mentions the confidence-score feature. The optional parameters are well-covered by the schema. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly contrasting with extract_insights or weekly_review, but given the annotations and schema, it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and 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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (start_id, max_pages, stale_days). The description adds minimal extra param meaning—only the phrase 'notebook or section' aligns with start_id, but it doesn't explain how max_pages or stale_days affect results. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'Audit' and clearly states the resource ('a notebook or section') and the distinct audit categories (duplicate candidates, stale pages, untitled/empty pages, ownerless action items, organization recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onenote_search or onenote_extract_insights by focusing on health assessment rather than general search or insight extraction.

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 a use case—auditing a notebook or section for organizational hygiene—but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like onenote_extract_insights, onenote_weekly_review, or onenote_search. There is no exclusionary language or direct comparison to siblings, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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