onenote_get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape (Markdown string with title, ID, timestamps, raw HTML body), which is useful behavioral framing, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, error cases, or how large pages are handled. It's a safe read implied by 'Get', but the disclosure is thin for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, and the following sections are short and skimmable. The header scaffolding (Return Format, Examples) is slightly heavy for a one-parameter tool, and 'complete HTML content' / 'full page content' repeat the same idea, but there is little true waste.

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 tool is simple: one required, fully documented parameter, an output schema covering the return value, and an unambiguous read action. The description covers what an agent needs to invoke it; only edge behavior (large pages, auth failures) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 page_id parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning; baseline is 3. The example ('onenote_get_page(page_id="0-PG123...")') hints at the ID format, but no meaning is added beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Get the complete HTML content of a OneNote page') and clarifies that the full body, not a snippet, is returned. It is clearly distinct from list/search siblings in spirit, but never names an alternative to route the agent explicitly, 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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'complete' (i.e., use this when you need the actual page body rather than a listing or search hit). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over onenote_search_pages, onenote_list_pages, or onenote_export, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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