Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'Read-only', which reinforces but doesn't add value beyond annotations. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (via fetchAllPages), response format, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal context.

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 brief (one sentence) but inefficiently structured. It front-loads vague information ('The events in the calendar') rather than stating the core purpose. While concise, it wastes space on unclear phrases like 'Navigation property' instead of providing actionable guidance.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only covering safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (a single calendar event), how to handle the many optional parameters, or provide context for usage. For a tool with this complexity, the description should do more to complement the schema and annotations.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how calendarId and eventId identify the event or clarify usage of select/expand). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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 events in the calendar. Navigation property. Read-only.' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'get-specific-calendar-event' without specifying the action (retrieving a single event by ID) or distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get-calendar-event' or 'list-specific-calendar-events'. The phrase 'Navigation property' is unclear in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this retrieves a specific event by ID (unlike 'list-calendar-events' for multiple events) or clarify the relationship with 'get-calendar-event' (a sibling tool with similar name). The description offers no 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.