List Pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the Graph API rejects account-wide page listing on accounts with many sections, forcing scoping by section or notebook. This is a valuable constraint that affects how the tool can be invoked. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but 'lists' implies that. It also doesn't mention pagination behavior or error handling, but the disclosed limitation is the most important behavioral aspect. This is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence provides a crucial constraint. It is front-loaded with the main action and clearly structured. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what the tool returns. It mentions 'get page IDs,' which implies the output includes page identifiers. It does not explain the full return format (e.g., whether it includes titles, links, etc.), but for a list tool with well-documented parameters and a clear purpose, this is acceptable. The description also covers the key operational caveat (no account-wide listing). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could be slightly richer on return details.

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 all five parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds only a small amount of semantic context: it reiterates the scoping concept ('scope by section or notebook') and mentions that listing across a notebook includes all sections, but this is already stated in the schema for notebookId. The description also hints that no search term is needed, which is not directly about parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description's added value is marginal, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Lists pages in a OneNote section, or across every section of a notebook, without needing a search term.' It specifies the resource (pages) and scope (section/notebook), and distinguishes itself from search_pages by explicitly saying 'without needing a search term.' The purpose of browsing and retrieving page IDs is also mentioned.

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 context: use it to browse and get page IDs. It also provides a critical usage constraint: 'there is no account-wide page listing — Graph rejects it on accounts with many sections, so scope by section or notebook.' This implicitly steers agents away from using it without scope and toward providing either sectionId or notebookId. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_pages for text-based searches, but the 'without needing a search term' phrase implies the contrast. Overall, it's clear but could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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