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 is a safe read operation. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'relationships', which provides context for the 'expand' parameter, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior for expanded relationships, or cache semantics despite openWorldHint=true.

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 description is admirably compact with no redundant text, though it may be overly minimal. It does not waste words, but also misses the opportunity to front-load the critical distinction (single task retrieval by ID) in the first clause.

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 simple get-by-ID pattern and absence of an output schema, the description adequately (if minimally) indicates what data is returned (properties and relationships). However, it omits error handling behavior and doesn't leverage the conciseness to explain the Microsoft Graph API conventions used by this tool family.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by mentioning 'properties' and 'relationships', which maps to OData-style querying implied by 'select' and 'expand' parameters, but does not explain the boolean flags (fetchAllPages, excludeResponse) or their interaction with the single-item retrieval pattern.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('plannerTask object'), but fails to distinguish this from sibling 'list-planner-tasks'. It doesn't clarify that this retrieves a single specific task by ID versus a collection, which is critical given the required 'plannerTaskId' parameter.

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 'list-planner-tasks' or 'get-planner-plan'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID) or error conditions (e.g., task not found).

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