notes_list_sections

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context including the authentication requirement ('Requires Notes.Read') and the structural relationship (sections are tabs where pages live), which helps the agent anticipate permissions and dependencies. No contradiction 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds workflow context, and the third gives the permission requirement. Every sentence carries useful information and the description remains compact.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the returned fields (id, name, last-modified date). It covers the source of the parameter, the hierarchical relationship to notebooks and pages, and the required permission. This is fully complete for a list tool.

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?

The schema describes notebook_id as 'The notebook ID to list sections for' with 100% coverage. The description enriches this by specifying that the ID comes from notes_list_notebooks, providing a source for the value and disambiguating it from other ID types. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: 'List the sections inside one OneNote notebook, with id, name and last-modified date.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sections inside one OneNote notebook'), and differs from the sibling notes_list_notebooks by focusing on the nested section resource.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states the input comes from notes_list_notebooks ('Takes a notebook id from notes_list_notebooks'), and explains the role of sections ('tabs within a notebook') and their necessity before creating pages ('a section id from here is required before notes_create_page can write anything'). This clarifies when to use the tool and its position in the workflow.

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