Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'assigned to a User,' but fails to detail pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy 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 lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity with 11 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or error cases, relying too heavily on the schema and annotations for a tool with significant operational scope.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying user assignment, which is not reflected in the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 plannertask objects assigned to a User'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-plan-tasks' or 'get-planner-task', which could cause confusion in tool selection.

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 'list-plan-tasks' or 'get-planner-task', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or user context. This lack of contextual guidance may lead to incorrect tool selection.

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