list-site-onenote-sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'newest-modified first,' pagination that handles more than 100 items automatically, and the fact that each item includes parentNotebook and parentSectionGroup. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, sorting/pagination behavior, item contents, and usage recommendation. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important identifying detail is front-loaded.

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 absent output schema and the complexity of navigating OneNote nesting, the description provides the essential behavioral details an agent needs: flattened listing, ordering, automatic pagination, and parent fields on results. Combined with the fully described parameters, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only general pagination context rather than explaining individual parameters, so it does not significantly elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource: 'List ALL sections of a SharePoint site's OneNote notebooks.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns sections 'regardless of section-group nesting,' which separates it from notebook-scoped or section-group-scoped list tools.

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 clear selection guidance by framing this as the 'Best entry point for large notebooks' and by clarifying that it covers all notebooks site-wide with flattened nesting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope and recommendation are sufficient for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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