list-site-onenote-section-pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the section-scoped, SharePoint-hosted scope, but does not contradict annotations or disclose additional behaviors like pagination or filtering, which are left to schema descriptions.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word carries meaning.

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 detailed input schema and comprehensive annotations, the one-line description is largely sufficient for a simple list operation. The schema explains pagination, filtering, and cursor behavior, and the sectionId source is noted. A more explicit mention of return-value shape would help since no output schema exists, but this is a minor gap.

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 baseline applies; the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema handles parameter semantics well, including meaningful descriptions for cursor, maxItems, and sectionId provenance, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the operation as listing pages within a specific section of a SharePoint-hosted OneNote notebook, using a specific verb and resource. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like list-onenote-section-pages by noting the SharePoint-hosted context, though it does not explicitly contrast with list-site-onenote-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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: use it to list pages in a section of a SharePoint-hosted notebook. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like list-site-onenote-pages or list-onenote-section-pages, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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