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, covering safety and scope. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning only the retrieval action. It doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by parameters like fetchAllPages), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps despite the annotations.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve a list'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 11 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of notebook objects), and the lack of sibling differentiation reduces completeness for the agent's decision-making context.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., top for limiting items, search for filtering). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating 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 ('list of notebook objects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like list-onenote-notebook-sections or list-onenote-section-pages), which would require mentioning it specifically retrieves top-level notebooks rather than sections or pages.

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-onenote-notebook-sections and list-onenote-section-pages available, there's no indication that this tool is for top-level notebooks rather than nested components. It also lacks prerequisites or exclusions.

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