Describe Stored Procedure

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 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what specific details are returned (e.g., parameter types, return values, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or performance implications. The description is too vague to guide an agent effectively beyond basic intent.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states the action and key details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating scope from output details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and complex database interactions. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it differs from similar tools. For a read operation in a database context, more behavioral context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'parameters and definition' are part of the output, which loosely relates to the 'includeDefinition' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific stored procedure', including specific details like 'parameters and definition'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_stored_procedures' (which lists names) and 'get_stored_procedure_definition' (which might only return the definition), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_stored_procedure_definition' or 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions', nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a connection or schema context. The description assumes context without stating it.

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