list-site-onenote-notebooks

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 description does not need to restate safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior or what happens on invalid siteId, but it does not contradict the 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 that is front-loaded with the action, resource, and scope. There is zero filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the full parameter schema, rich safety annotations, and the simple list-like behavior, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of an explicit usage pointer to the non-site-specific sibling list-onenote-notebooks, but the scope wording largely covers that.

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 (siteId, cursor, filter, orderby, maxItems) is already documented meaningfully. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('OneNote notebooks'), and a defining scope ('hosted on a SharePoint site'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-onenote-notebooks and site-specific notebook-section tools, though it does not name the alternative explicitly.

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 'hosted on a SharePoint site' implies this tool is for site-scoped notebooks rather than user-scoped ones, and the required siteId parameter signals the prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list-onenote-notebooks or mention any exclusion criteria.

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