list-onenote-notebooks

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: 'List' aligns with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint being false. It adds the useful context that it operates on the signed-in user's notebooks, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination handling or empty-result behavior. Given the annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, complete, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and leaves parameter details to the schema, which is the appropriate division of labor.

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 simple read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters and clear scoping, the description is nearly complete. It could be enhanced by explicitly pointing to list-site-onenote-notebooks for site-scoped notebooks, but the scoping phrase already conveys the core distinction.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a clear resource ('the signed-in user's OneNote notebooks'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that list site-scoped notebooks or notebook contents. It is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 'signed-in user's' implies the intended scope and differentiates it from list-site-onenote-notebooks, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is present only implicitly through the scoping language.

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