onenote_search_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that matching is case-insensitive and title-only, but it omits the `top` result limit, ordering behavior, and any authorization or rate-limit context. The output schema covers return values, but key search-behavior details remain unstated.

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 short sentences with no filler and is front-loaded with the primary behavior. The exclusion is placed immediately after, so every sentence 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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the main query behavior and excludes body search, and the output schema handles return values. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, leaving `top` entirely undocumented makes the definition incomplete for correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the `query` text is matched against page titles case-insensitively, but it never mentions the `top` parameter or its default of 20. One of the two parameters is left unexplained beyond its name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find pages whose title contains text. It also clarifies the search scope by excluding page bodies, making the core behavior clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling `onenote_list_pages` tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context: use this when searching by title, and it explicitly excludes body searches. It does not name an alternative tool for listing all pages or for full-text search, so it stops short of the top score.

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