Microsoft 365 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Check' appropriately signals a read-only status inspection operation, but lacks details on return format (boolean vs. object), error handling when unauthenticated, or whether it triggers interactive login flows.

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?

Extremely concise at five words. Front-loaded with action verb 'Check'. No redundant or wasted language; every word serves the purpose statement directly.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, but incomplete given the absence of an output schema. The description should ideally disclose what information the status check returns (e.g., account identifier, expiration time, or boolean logged-in state) to inform downstream tool selection.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter documentation is required in the description.

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?

Clear verb 'Check' and resource 'Microsoft authentication status' effectively communicate the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'login' tool (which likely initiates authentication), which would help the agent understand when to verify status versus establish new credentials.

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 explicit guidance provided on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling 'login' tool exists, the description should specify that this is for verification of existing sessions rather than authentication initiation, and ideally note that it should be used before operations requiring valid credentials.

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