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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves definitions but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a database query tool.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and gets directly to the point.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'complete SQL definitions' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. The agent would need to guess about the tool's operation and output format.

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 documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., connectionString vs connectionName) or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete SQL definitions for multiple stored procedures at once'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_stored_procedure_definition' by specifying 'multiple stored procedures at once', though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions'.

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 to choose this over 'get_stored_procedure_definition' (for single procedures) or 'get_all_stored_procedure_definitions' (for all procedures), nor does it discuss prerequisites or context for usage.

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