Microsoft SQL Server MCP Server (MSSQL)

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 states what information is returned ('database size information including data and log file sizes'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact on the database, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the information is returned in.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward analysis tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the size information is returned in, whether the operation has side effects, authentication requirements, or how it differs from other database inspection tools. Given the complexity of database operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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') and resource ('database size information') with specific scope ('including data and log file sizes'). It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools that analyze other database aspects like constraints, indexes, or procedures, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'list_databases' which might provide different size information.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_databases', 'analyze_table_stats', 'describe_table'), there's no indication of when this specific size analysis is preferred over other database inspection tools.

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