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. It mentions default behavior ('top 10 rows by default') but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact on large tables, authentication needs via connection parameters, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and default behavior efficiently.

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 data retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on return format (e.g., row structure), error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limits or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies the 'limit' parameter defaults to 10 but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage scenarios. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve sample data') and resource ('from a table'), with specific scope ('top 10 rows by default'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'describe_table' or 'execute_query', but the sampling focus is reasonably distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_table' (for schema) or 'execute_query' (for custom queries). The description implies quick data preview but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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