List OneNote pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by enumerating the returned fields and describing filter semantics, which substitutes for the absent output schema. It does not mention pagination or the default/maximum result cap, leaving the agent to discover that from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and at what scopes, then filters, then a usage cue. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without loss.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what a page record contains, the scoping hierarchy, and the filterable dimensions. An agent has enough to construct a correct call without guessing.

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%, so every parameter including limit, order, and modified_before is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the title filter, the modified-date range, and the section/notebook scoping, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists pages) plus the three scopes it can operate at (section, notebook, all notebooks) and the fields returned (title, dates, location, ID). It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling onenote_search_pages, so an agent reading only the description could not confidently pick between them.

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?

Provides a concrete usage cue — "Use for 'what did I write this week' style questions" — which maps a real user intent to this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, and given that onenote_search_pages and onenote_collect_pages exist as close siblings, that omission matters.

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