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. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), what permissions are required, how results are formatted (e.g., list of relationships with details), whether it's paginated or returns all data at once, or potential rate limits. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 foreign key relationships between tables in the database') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function without 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 the complexity (database metadata query with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. destructive), output format, error handling, or connection requirements. For a tool that interacts with database connections and returns relationship data, more context is needed to guide effective 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 three parameters (connectionString, connectionName, schema) with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., precedence between connectionString and connectionName) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get') and resource ('foreign key relationships between tables in the database'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_constraints' or 'list_tables' by specifying foreign key relationships. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like 'describe_table' which might include relationship info.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid connection), compare it to siblings like 'list_constraints' (which might include foreign keys) or 'describe_table' (which might show relationships), or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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