Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

While annotations.declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read), the description adds no context about the behavioral traits: it doesn't explain that fetchAllPages automatically follows pagination, what the ETag in includeHeaders is used for, or that excludeResponse returns only metadata. The openWorldHint annotation suggests external resource handling, but the description is silent on this.

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 single sentence is severely under-specified for a 4-parameter tool. While brief, it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test by providing insufficient information to distinguish this from other content retrieval tools or explain the pagination behavior implied by fetchAllPages.

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 Microsoft 365 integration tool with complex pagination options and response variants (HTML content vs headers only vs success indicator), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the output format, error conditions, or prerequisites (authentication, specific permissions) despite the rich domain context.

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 parameter purposes are documented in the schema fields themselves. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., that onenotePageId typically comes from list-onenote-section-pages, or that excludeResponse is useful for validation checks without data transfer). Baseline 3 applies.

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 'The page's HTML content' is a noun fragment describing the output resource, not the tool's action. It lacks a verb (get/retrieve/fetch) and fails to clearly state that this tool extracts content from a specific OneNote page, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-onenote-section-pages or create-onenote-page.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that users typically need to call list-onenote-section-pages first to obtain a page ID, nor when to use fetchAllPages versus handling pagination manually.

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