MCP SQL Server

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 describes what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of the output. For a metadata query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is described.

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 (a metadata query with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter nuances. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited, aligning with a score of 3.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds some value by implying the 'table_name' parameter is used to specify which table to describe, but it doesn't clarify syntax, format, or constraints. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully, warranting a baseline score.

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: 'Describe columnas, PK, FK e índices de una tabla' (Describe columns, primary keys, foreign keys, and indexes of a table). It specifies the verb 'describe' and the resource 'table', with details about what aspects are described. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sql_list_tables or sql_capabilities, which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like sql_list_tables (for listing tables) or sql_capabilities (for broader metadata), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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