Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks authentication status but doesn't describe what happens if authentication is missing/expired, whether it triggers re-authentication, what the response format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context about what the check actually returns and how it behaves in different authentication states. For a tool that could return various status outcomes, more behavioral context would be helpful despite the simple structure.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline would be 4 since no parameters need semantic explanation.

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 tool's purpose as 'Check current Microsoft authentication status', which is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Microsoft authentication status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'login' or 'logout' by focusing on status verification rather than authentication actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-current-user' which might overlap in some contexts.

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 implies usage context (checking authentication status), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'login' or 'get-current-user'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the purpose alone.

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