onenote_get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output shape (metadata plus plain text, to-dos rendered as [ ] / [x]), which is real added value. However it says nothing about read-only safety, permission/auth requirements, or what happens when content exceeds max_chars.

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?

A single parenthetical sentence that front-loads the action and then the return format. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back, but omits the truncation semantics of max_chars and any indication of failure modes, which are the two things an agent most needs before calling it.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not: page_id is never explained and max_chars, the truncation control, is entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent to guess whether output is cut off silently.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a page') and goes further by naming the return payload: metadata plus plain-text content with to-do markers. It contrasts implicitly with the onenote_list_pages and onenote_search_pages siblings by framing this as a single-page read, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and by the required page_id in the schema; there is no statement of when to prefer this over onenote_search_pages or onenote_list_pages, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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