Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and flexibility. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as mentioning 'properties and relationships' which hints at the data structure, but doesn't detail pagination behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations providing core safety info, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, but it's borderline minimal.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output details (no output schema provided), usage context relative to siblings, and deeper parameter guidance. For a retrieval tool with good annotation coverage, it meets minimum viability but doesn't fully leverage the opportunity to be more helpful.

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 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'select' or 'expand' mean in the context of a planner plan. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context like example usage or common parameter combinations.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('plannerplan object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar read operations like 'get-planner-task' or 'get-calendar-event' in the sibling list, which would require mentioning it specifically fetches plan-level data rather than task-level or other entity data.

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. With siblings like 'list-planner-tasks' and 'get-planner-task', there's no indication whether this is for fetching a single plan by ID versus listing plans or tasks, or how it relates to other planner tools. This leaves usage context entirely implicit.

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