mssql_analyze_indexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context (e.g., it returns seeks/scans/lookups/updates and missing index suggestions) beyond the annotations, without contradiction.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing the key outputs (seeks/scans/lookups/updates and missing indexes). Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Tool has 2 parameters, no output schema. The description explains the output (index usage metrics and missing index suggestions) but does not detail the response format or how missing indexes are presented. Still, it covers the main functionality adequately for its complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it rephrases the tableName parameter as 'Optionally filter usage stats by table name' and response_format is self-explanatory. No substantive enrichment.

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 tool analyzes index usage and lists missing indexes, with optional table filtering. It is distinct from siblings like mssql_index_fragmentation (focuses on fragmentation) and mssql_get_schema, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 implies it should be used for analyzing index performance and finding optimization opportunities, but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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