Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance transparency further.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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?

For a list tool with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness despite the structured data.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 11 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is correct, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('Get') and resource ('todoTaskList objects and their properties'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-todo-tasks' or 'list-planner-tasks' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach 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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list-todo-tasks' or other list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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