list-site-onenote-notebook-sections

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ordered newest-modified first and pagination past 100 sections is handled automatically, which helps the agent set expectations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause earns its place. The ordering and pagination details are compactly included without fluff.

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?

The description covers the core listing behavior, ordering, and pagination, and the schema handles parameter details. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what fields the returned sections contain, which leaves a moderate gap for an agent that needs to consume the results downstream.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with examples. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('sections of a SharePoint-hosted OneNote notebook'), and adds meaningful ordering behavior ('newest-modified first'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'list-site-onenote-sections', though 'of a notebook' narrows the scope.

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 explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over list-site-onenote-sections or list-onenote-notebook-sections, leaving selection to inference from the names.

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