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 scope. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action—it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by parameters like 'top' and 'fetchAllPages'), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'onenoteSection objects' entail. With annotations providing core safety info, this earns a baseline score for adding minimal value.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Retrieve a list') and resource. There's no redundancy or fluff—every word serves to clarify the tool's purpose efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral nuances, or output format. With annotations covering safety and the schema detailing parameters, it's functional but leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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 12 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'top' for limiting items, 'filter' for property-based filtering). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying retrieval from a notebook, which the schema's 'notebookId' requirement already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('onenoteSection objects from the specified notebook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-onenote-notebooks' or 'list-onenote-section-pages', which would require mentioning it specifically lists sections within a notebook rather than notebooks themselves or pages within sections.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a notebook ID), compare to similar tools like 'list-onenote-notebooks', or indicate scenarios where filtering or pagination might be necessary. This leaves the agent with minimal 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.