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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens with large tables, whether results are cached, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only analysis tool with 4 well-documented parameters but no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what statistics are retrieved. However, it doesn't address important contextual aspects like performance implications for large tables, output format, or how it differs from similar sibling tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (like explaining how parameters interact or providing examples). 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get table row counts, size information, and last update statistics'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'analyze_database_size', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'describe_table', 'analyze_database_size', and 'list_tables', there's no indication of when this specific statistical analysis tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from other analysis tools.

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