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, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, though the mention of 'another user's contact folder' hints at delegated permissions without explaining authentication requirements or the promised scenarios.

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?

While brief at two sentences, the structure is defective due to the incomplete second sentence ending with a colon. This appears to be truncated content rather than intentional conciseness, leaving the reader expecting a list of scenarios that never arrives.

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?

With 6 parameters including OData query options (select/expand) and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of pagination behavior (relevant to fetchAllPages), return format, or authentication requirements for the promised cross-user access scenarios. The incomplete sentence significantly undermines completeness for this complexity level.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (select, expand, fetchAllPages, etc.), establishing baseline understanding. The description mentions 'properties and relationships' which conceptually maps to select/expand parameters, but provides no additional syntax guidance, format details, or examples beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with a clear verb (Retrieve) and resource (contact object), specifying both properties and relationships. However, the trailing incomplete sentence ('There are two scenarios where an app can get a contact in another user's contact folder:') creates confusion about scope and fails to differentiate from the sibling list-outlook-contacts tool.

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 attempts to provide usage context by mentioning 'two scenarios' for accessing another user's contact folder, but the sentence is incomplete (ends with a colon), leaving the actual guidance absent. No explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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