MSSQL MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions what information is retrieved (definition and dependencies), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it connects to a live database, potential performance impact, error handling, or output format. For a database tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with specific details. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.

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 database analysis tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like required permissions, connection requirements, performance considerations, error conditions, or what the detailed information output looks like. Given the complexity of database operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete guidance for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter information 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific view') with specific details about what information is retrieved ('its definition and dependencies'). It distinguishes from siblings like describe_table or describe_stored_procedure by focusing specifically on views. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_views which might be a similar sibling tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use describe_view versus describe_table, describe_stored_procedure, or list_views. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other analysis tools in the sibling list.

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