Describe Table Columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only' and highlighting the use of parameterized queries to prevent injection, which is useful security context beyond the raw 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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, returned fields, read-only nature, and security note without any redundancy or filler. All elements are purposeful 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the existing annotations, and a full schema with parameter descriptions, the description covers essential return content (column fields) and safety traits. It does not discuss error cases or response formatting nuances, but the response_format parameter is already described in the schema, so this is a minor gap.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond identifying the table as the subject, which is the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Returns') and precisely identifies the resource ('column definitions for a table'). It enumerates the returned fields (name, data type, length, nullability, default, ordinal position), distinguishing this from sibling tools like mssql_describe_table and mssql_get_schema.

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 clearly implies when to use it—when column-level metadata is needed—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative-tool references are provided.

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