onenote_index_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape ('state, pages done/total, indexed page count') and the operation is obviously read-only, but it says nothing about how long a build takes, what states are possible, or error behavior. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact return-format note and a trivial example. It is well organized with no wasted prose, though the header scaffolding is slightly heavy for a one-line operation.

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 no-parameter, no-annotation status query this is nearly complete. Since an output schema exists, the return-format block is somewhat redundant, and the lack of guidance on polling cadence or how it relates to onenote_index_start is the only real 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric; there is nothing to document and the schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show full-text index build progress and coverage.' An agent can tell this is a status/monitoring tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling onenote_index_start, which it is clearly paired with.

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 — an agent infers this is called to monitor an in-progress index build, most likely after onenote_index_start. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the start/tool pairing.

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