list-onenote-notebook-section-groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds a scoping note about a sibling; it does not disclose this tool's own pagination behavior, output shape, or hierarchy details beyond the annotations, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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 a useful parenthetical that prevents a common tool-selection mistake. It is front-loaded with the core operation and contains no filler.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It differentiates from the most similar sibling and clearly scopes the resource. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly address nested section groups or relate to other OneNote hierarchy tools like list-onenote-section-group-sections, but the tool name and schema largely compensate.

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 schema has 100% description coverage: notebookId, cursor, filter, orderby, and maxItems all have descriptive text, including pagination semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('section groups of a OneNote notebook'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling list-onenote-notebook-sections with a clarifying parenthetical. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from a closely related tool.

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 context: it lists section groups of a OneNote notebook, and it warns that list-onenote-notebook-sections does not return sections nested in groups. This helps an agent avoid picking the wrong sibling, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for listing group-nested sections or state exclusions beyond that.

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