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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool shows 'detailed index usage statistics', it doesn't describe what format the output takes, whether it's read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any performance implications. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, with zero wasted words or redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the output looks like, how results are formatted, whether there are performance considerations for large databases, or what permissions are required. For a database analysis tool with multiple configuration options, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., connectionString vs connectionName), parameter dependencies, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show detailed index usage statistics to identify unused or underutilized indexes'. It specifies the verb 'show' and resource 'index usage statistics', with a clear goal of identifying unused/underutilized indexes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_indexes' or 'find_missing_indexes', which prevents a perfect score.

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 focused on database analysis (e.g., 'analyze_table_stats', 'find_missing_indexes'), there's no indication of when this specific index analysis tool is appropriate versus other analysis or listing tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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