notes_list_notebooks

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it lists both owned and shared notebooks, requires Notes.Read permission, and provides the workflow connection. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, workflow context, and scope/permission. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool returns, when to call it in a larger workflow, its permissions, and its scope (owned + shared). Given the tool's simplicity and high annotation coverage, it is complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional max_results parameter, with a clear schema description. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already explains it sufficiently, so baseline 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 lists the signed-in user's OneNote notebooks with specific return fields (id, name, last-modified date, web URL). It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning it as the entry point for the notes workflow, which notes_list_sections and notes_create_page depend on.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first when saving or finding a note' and explains the dependency chain: notebook id -> notes_list_sections -> section id -> notes_create_page. This gives clear contextual guidance on when to use it versus alternatives.

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