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 minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating it 'retrieves a list' but not detailing pagination, rate limits, or error handling. With annotations providing core behavioral traits, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, error cases, or performance considerations. With annotations handling safety, it's viable but could be more informative for a multi-parameter tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying retrieval from a 'specified section' (mapping to 'onenoteSectionId'). 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 ('list of page objects from the specified section'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-onenote-notebooks' or 'list-onenote-notebook-sections', which would require a 5.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid section ID), nor does it clarify when to choose this over other list tools like 'list-onenote-notebooks'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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