Get a OneDrive file’s details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing exactly what the returned metadata includes, including the two links. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output fields are front-loaded, and the fileId source is stated at the end. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what the tool returns, where the required parameter comes from, and the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, with fileId already described as 'the OneDrive item id (from list_onedrive_files)'. The description repeats this provenance rather than adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one OneDrive item’s metadata', and lists the exact return fields (name, type, size, modified time, webViewLink, webContentLink). This clearly distinguishes it from list_onedrive_files (which lists many items) and get_drive_file (which is not OneDrive-specific).

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 gives clear usage context by telling the agent to pass fileId from list_onedrive_files, which establishes the prerequisite and source of the identifier. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like get_drive_file, but the read-only framing and 'from list_onedrive_files' hint are sufficient for most selection scenarios.

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