Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds the scoping context (tasks associated with a plan) but omits behavioral details like pagination behavior (despite the fetchAllPages parameter), rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid plan ID). It does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no wasted words or redundancy. However, it is undersized for the tool's complexity (12 parameters including pagination controls), though this is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness failure.

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 rich input schema (12 parameters with OData query capabilities) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the return type implicitly ('plannerTask objects') but should explain pagination behavior, the effect of 'fetchAllPages', or provide guidance on the query options available.

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 for the required 'plannerPlanId' parameter by explaining the association with a 'plannerPlan object', but does not elaborate on the OData query parameters (top, skip, filter) or custom parameters like 'fetchAllPages' beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verbs ('Retrieve') and resources ('plannerTask objects') and clarifies the scope ('associated with a plannerPlan object'), which correctly implies the required plannerPlanId parameter. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'list-planner-tasks', leaving ambiguity about which list operation to use.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'list-planner-tasks' or 'get-planner-task'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid plan ID) or when to use the OData query parameters (filter, search) versus fetching all results.

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