onenote_recent

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the traversal method (TOC walk), ordering (newest first), and return shape (markdown with dated entries including title/notebook/section/id). However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any failure/empty-result behavior.

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 one-line purpose followed by clearly labeled Return Format and Examples sections; every line is short and scannable. The 'domain-inbox answer to "what changed"' framing is slightly jargon-y but not wasteful.

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?

Only one optional parameter, fully documented, and an output schema is present. The description covers purpose, ordering, and invocation examples sufficiently; the remaining gap is the absence of any mention of upstream auth or sibling selection guidance.

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% — the `days` parameter already documents type, default 7, and the 1-90 range. The examples (`onenote_recent()` vs `onenote_recent(days=30)`) demonstrate the parameter in practice but add no semantic detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and a scoped resource (recently modified pages across all notebooks), plus ordering ('newest first'). Distinguishes itself in scope from onenote_list_pages and onenote_search_pages, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'The domain-inbox answer to "what changed"' implies a recency-monitoring use case, but it never states when to prefer this over onenote_search_pages or onenote_list_pages, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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