Describe Stored Procedure

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

No annotations exist, so the description must reveal behavior independently. It states 'gets detailed information' which clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention any prerequisites, side effects, or access requirements, but for a read operation that may be sufficient. There is no contradiction with any annotations (since none exist). This is a step above a purely vague statement, but it could be more explicit about the nature of the 'detailed information.'

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action ('Gets detailed information') and specifies the key attributes. No filler, no ambiguity, no irrelevant details. Excellent structure.

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?

The tool has one parameter bind absence of output schema and annotations. The description tells what it does and what it includes (source code and parameters), but does not specify the exact output structure, any error conditions, or the context required (e.g., database connection, permissions). Given it's a describe operation, it could benefit from mentioning that the procedure must exist or what happens if not found. However, for a simple read tool, it's reasonably 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?

The schema already provides a description for the single parameter (procedureName: 'Name of the stored procedure to describe'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond 'get info' and 'specific procedure.' It doesn't clarify any constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, schema qualification, existence check). Thus, the description provides baseline value but no enhancement over the schema.

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 ('Gets'), a specific resource ('specific stored procedure'), and specifies the scope ('including its source code and parameters'). This clearly differentiates from siblings like list-procedures (which lists) and describe-table, making it immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—when you need detailed info on a single stored procedure vs. listing all (list-procedures). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list-procedures to discover names' or 'not for modifying procedures.' There is no contraindication or when-not guidance.

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