onenote_list_notebooks

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (a Markdown string with a header line and numbered notebooks including IDs), which is real behavioral information. It says nothing about authentication prerequisites despite an authenticate/onenote_save_access_token sibling pair, nor about truncation or result limits for accounts with many notebooks.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a compact Return Format section and a single example call. Section headers make it scannable and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description's job is small, and it covers purpose plus return format adequately. The gaps are the missing authentication precondition and the absence of any routing hint relative to the many sibling listing tools.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The schema coverage figure of 100% is trivially satisfied by an empty property set.

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: 'List all Microsoft OneNote notebooks accessible to the signed-in account.' The scope (signed-in account) is precise. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings that also enumerate OneNote content, such as onenote_list_sections, onenote_list_pages, or show_notebooks_card, so an agent must infer the hierarchy.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent facing onenote_recent, onenote_search_pages, onenote_get_notebook and show_notebooks_card must guess which entry point to call. The only clue is the unavoidable inference that listing notebooks is the top of the hierarchy.

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