get-onenote-page-content

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the return value is full HTML content for the actual note body, which is not visible in the schema. This is sufficient behavioral context for a safe read operation.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the useful contrast with metadata. Every clause 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. An agent knows what the tool returns, what it does not return, and what input is required. No crucial operational details are missing at this simplicity level.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about pageId, and the schema's 'Value for pageId' is tautological, but the single required parameter is self-evident from its name and the tool's purpose.

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 names a specific verb and resource: get the FULL HTML content of a OneNote page. It explicitly contrasts with metadata, which separates it from sibling tools like get-onenote-page. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 phrase 'not just metadata' tells an agent this tool is for retrieving the actual note body, implying the alternative is a metadata-focused OneNote page tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool or address the site-scoped variant, but it provides enough context for the common selection decision.

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