list-onenote-notebook-sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral context beyond those flags by specifying the default ordering ('newest-modified first') and automatic pagination past 100 sections, which are not visible in 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?

A single sentence with a parenthetical packs the core action plus two important behaviors with zero wasted words. The key resource is front-loaded before the behavioral qualifiers.

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 a rich schema covering all five parameters and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add the default ordering and pagination behavior, which it does. There is no output schema, but 'List sections' sufficiently implies a list of section objects; explicit sibling-selection guidance is the only notable gap, and that is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes extra meaning by revealing the default sort order ('newest-modified first') and the automatic pagination threshold, which clarify how orderby and maxItems/cursor behave. It does not need to repeat the schema's per-parameter documentation.

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 the exact resource ('sections of a OneNote notebook') and the verb 'List', so the agent immediately knows what is returned. The parenthetical ordering and pagination details further disambiguate it from sibling section listing tools such as list-onenote-section-pages or list-onenote-sections.

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?

Aside from the inherent scope implied by 'of a OneNote notebook', there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings (list-onenote-sections, list-onenote-notebook-section-groups, list-onenote-section-group-sections). No exclusion or alternative routing is given, so an agent must infer selection from the tool names alone.

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