Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists accounts but doesn't describe what 'available' entails (e.g., scope, permissions), the return format, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural complexity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a list of accounts. It doesn't explain what 'available' means, the format of the returned data, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with potential complexity in account listing, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Microsoft accounts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select-account' or 'remove-account' by focusing on listing rather than selection or removal. However, it doesn't specify what 'available' means (e.g., authenticated vs. all accounts), leaving some ambiguity.

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 like 'select-account' or 'get-current-user'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication is required) or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without operational context.

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