onenote_search

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description has a lower burden. It adds that results include page IDs, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like result limits, ordering, or the effect of the optional start_id scope beyond what the schema already states.

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 two short, direct sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core action and return value.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains that it returns matching pages with IDs, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks details on result pagination, ordering, or whether the search spans all notebooks by default. Given the low complexity and strong schema/annotations, this is mostly complete.

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% with both 'query' and 'start_id' described. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, merely restating that it is a full-text search. This is acceptable but does not go beyond 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 performs full-text search across OneNote pages and returns matching page IDs. The verb 'search' and resource 'OneNote pages' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like onenote_navigate or onenote_get_page.

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 usage for finding pages by content but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusionary scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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