list-onenote-section-pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context: it doesn't mention pagination via cursor, that search/filter/orderby alter the query, or what page data is returned. It is essentially redundant with the tool name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it efficient and easy to parse. It could convey more useful distinguishing detail without sacrificing conciseness, which keeps it just below the top tier.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and many close OneNote siblings, this one-sentence description is under-specified. It doesn't confirm whether this applies to the user's OneNote or a site's, how results are ordered or truncated, or how it differs from 'search-onenote-pages'. The schema hints at behavior, but the description fails to contextualize the tool for selection.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description (e.g., cursor explicitly states 'other query inputs are ignored'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 ('pages of a OneNote section'), clearly conveying the operation. It distinguishes from 'search-onenote-pages' by using 'list' instead of 'search', but does not explicitly disambiguate from the site-scoped sibling 'list-site-onenote-section-pages'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search-onenote-pages' (for full-text search) or 'list-site-onenote-section-pages' (for site-scoped sections). The description gives no context about scope, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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