Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate this is a safe read operation with potentially large results. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning 'HTML content' (implying format) but doesn't disclose important traits like pagination behavior (hinted by the 'fetchAllPages' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid page IDs.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework for this dimension, it's front-loaded with the core information (mentions HTML content) and contains zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety aspects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'HTML content' (structure, size limits, error cases), doesn't mention the sibling context (other OneNote tools), and leaves behavioral aspects like pagination and response handling implied rather than explicit.

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%, with all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'fetchAllPages' interacts with HTML content retrieval) or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 'The page's HTML content' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get-onenote-page-content' rather than explaining what the tool does. It doesn't specify the verb (retrieve/fetch) or distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get-onenote-page-metadata' or 'list-onenote-section-pages' that might also involve page content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-onenote-section-pages' (which lists pages) or 'create-onenote-page' (which creates pages), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid page ID or authentication context.

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