Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation with potential side effects. The description doesn't contradict these annotations. It adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning that 'search results are provided in the response,' but doesn't elaborate on what 'runs the query' entails behaviorally (e.g., whether it triggers indexing, affects system state, or has rate limits). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but could provide more operational context.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and outcome. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the essential information 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, 67% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations indicating it's a destructive write operation), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the scope of the search (e.g., across Microsoft 365 entities), potential impacts of the destructive hint, or what the response contains. For such a multifaceted tool, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 67%, with detailed descriptions for many nested parameters. The description mentions 'request body' and 'search results,' which aligns with the 'body' parameter and output. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical usage patterns. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly compensate for gaps.

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 states the tool 'runs the query specified in the request body' and provides search results, which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what type of search this is (e.g., Microsoft 365 search across multiple entity types) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from potential search-like operations in sibling tools. The description lacks specificity about the resource scope or domain.

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 any prerequisites, context for search operations, or differentiate from other tools that might retrieve data (like list-* tools). There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice or named alternatives for similar functionality.

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