Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful context: event bodies are returned only in HTML format, and there are specific scenarios for accessing other users' calendars. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (despite a 'fetchAllPages' parameter), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 description is moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence about HTML format and third about user scenarios and extensions add useful details without being wasteful. However, the structure is somewhat fragmented, and it doesn't prioritize the most critical information (e.g., key parameters or usage context) upfront.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It adds context like HTML format and user access scenarios, but lacks output details (no output schema), doesn't explain pagination or error handling, and misses guidance on when to use vs. siblings. With annotations covering safety, it's adequate but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for 'select' or 'expand' values or details on 'eventId' format. It implies retrieval of properties and extensions, which aligns with parameters but doesn't enhance their semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the properties and relationships of the specified event object.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('event object'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-specific-calendar-event' or 'get-calendar-view', which reduces clarity. The mention of HTML format and scenarios for accessing other users' calendars adds specificity, though not full sibling differentiation.

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 description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions scenarios for accessing another user's calendar and notes that custom properties can be retrieved, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no comparisons to alternatives like 'get-specific-calendar-event' or 'get-calendar-view', and no prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with little context for tool selection.

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