List Sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the listing action and scope. It does not disclose whether this is strictly read-only, what the response contains, or how results are ordered/paginated, leaving the behavior somewhat opaque.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, the core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant downstream context. 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no required inputs, the description plus the schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It would be more complete with response-shape or pagination hints, but those are not essential for 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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents notebookId including its optionality. The description's 'optionally scoped to a single notebook by ID' mirrors the schema rather than adding new semantic detail, so it earns the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists OneNote sections') and notes optional notebook scoping, so an agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like list_section_groups or list_pages, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides a clear downstream use case ('Section IDs are needed by create_page') and notes the optional scope, giving an agent a concrete reason to call it. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it is clear context without explicit 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.