list-site-onenote-notebook-section-groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide, such as pagination semantics or return format. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description does not enrich the behavioral picture.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool with six parameters, multiple similar siblings, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It lacks guidance on how this tool fits among the many list-site-onenote-* variants and does not clarify what the response contains. Schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description does not help the agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, including cursor, filter, orderby, maxItems, siteId, and notebookId. The description itself mentions none of these parameters, but high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the parameter descriptions are already self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('section groups of a SharePoint-hosted OneNote notebook'). The 'SharePoint-hosted' qualifier explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list-onenote-notebook-section-groups, which target personal OneNote. The verb and object are precise and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-site-onenote-sections, list-site-onenote-section-group-sections, or list-onenote-notebook-section-groups. It does not state exclusion criteria or provide a decision rule, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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