Microsoft SQL Server MCP Server (MSSQL)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't describe what the output looks like (format, structure, or content beyond 'computed columns and their formulas'). It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or any rate limits or performance considerations for database queries.

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 at 10 words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('List computed columns and their formulas') followed by the purpose ('to understand derived business logic'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted text.

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 query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains (beyond 'computed columns and their formulas'), how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or what happens when no computed columns exist. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context for effective tool use.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of connection strings, or clarify the relationship between connectionString and connectionName. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'List computed columns and their formulas' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on computed columns rather than other database objects like tables, indexes, or stored procedures. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'describe_table' which might also provide column 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. It doesn't mention when this tool is preferable to 'describe_table' or other sibling tools that might provide overlapping information. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the generic 'to understand derived business logic' phrase.

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