onenote_search_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: 'title' is always available while 'fulltext' requires a pre-built index. It also documents the return format. It omits auth requirements and any index staleness/rate-limit caveats, so not a 5.

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-loads purpose, then modes, then return format and examples; every block is useful. The section headers and example repetition add slight bulk but nothing is truly 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?

Given two parameters and an existing output schema, the definition covers mode availability, the index prerequisite, and an example invocation. Return-value explanation is arguably redundant with the output schema but harmless; overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the mode and query parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's mode explanation largely restates the schema's mode description without adding format or syntax detail beyond it.

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 (search) and resource (pages) with scope ('across all OneNote notebooks'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like onenote_list_pages or onenote_recent, 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?

Explicitly explains the two modes and the condition that gates 'fulltext' ('build it first', referencing onenote_index_start), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_pages or recent, so no exclusions are given.

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