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. It states the tool retrieves information (a read operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond definition and events. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with database access.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific trigger') and specifies key details ('definition and events'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 database query tool. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of 'detailed information'), error conditions, or connection handling. However, it adequately states the purpose and parameters are well-documented in the schema, making it minimally viable.

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 4 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 trigger'), specifying what information is retrieved ('definition and events'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_triggers' (which lists triggers) and 'describe_stored_procedure' (which describes a different resource type).

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 implies usage when detailed trigger information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_triggers' for a list, 'describe_table' for table details). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving guidance incomplete.

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