get_query_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the key non-destructive behavior (no execution) but does not mention any privileges required, potential performance cost, or error behavior on invalid SQL. This is adequate for a read-only estimation but lacks additional context.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the key action and resource, followed by the important qualifier 'without executing it'. There is zero wasted text — every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple analysis tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and behavior. Minor gaps like output format or assumptions about SQL validity are not critical for invocation, but a slightly more detailed hint about the expected return would push this to a 5. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a descriptive name and purpose (sql, server, database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither improves nor degrades the parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'estimated execution plan for a SQL query', and explicitly clarifies 'without executing it' — this distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_query and conveys exactly what the tool does. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without executing it' provides clear context that this tool is for analysis rather than execution, implying when to choose it over execute_query. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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