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 mentions the default row limit (10) and maximum (100), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential performance impact on large tables, authentication requirements through connection parameters, or what happens with invalid table names. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 - a single sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Retrieve' (action), 'sample data' (what), 'from a table' (where), and '(top 10 rows by default)' (key behavioral detail). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, database operations) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and default behavior but misses important context about authentication, error handling, performance considerations, and return format. For a data retrieval tool that could have significant implications depending on the database accessed, more completeness would be expected.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it implies the 'limit' parameter exists through mentioning 'top 10 rows by default', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. The baseline of 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 ('Retrieve sample data') and resource ('from a table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_table' or 'execute_query' by focusing on sampling rather than metadata or arbitrary queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_data_distribution' which might also involve data sampling.

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. With siblings like 'describe_table' (metadata), 'execute_query' (custom queries), and 'analyze_data_distribution' (statistical analysis), there's no indication of when sampling is preferred over these other approaches. The default limit (10 rows) is mentioned but without context about why this default exists or when to override it.

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