show_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the return structure and the histogram_only behavior, and notes both supported endpoint types. It does not formally state that the operation is read-only or mention permission requirements, but the verbs 'Show' and 'Returns' strongly imply non-destructive behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose and return value, then lists parameters in a scannable Args block. Every sentence adds useful information with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the operation, all five parameters, the return contents, and supported environments, and a separate output schema exists for return values. It omits explicit permission/prerequiquisite details, but for a read-only 'show' command this is not a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter gets a meaningful explanation: workspace name or GUID, item as warehouse/SQL endpoint name or GUID, qualified table with an example, statistic name, and histogram_only behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 states a specific action, 'Show details of a statistic using DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS', and names the returned components (stat header, density vector, histogram steps). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_statistics, create_statistics, and delete_statistics without needing those names.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need details of a specific statistic rather than listing statistics. It also notes that both Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints are supported. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools such as list_statistics or state when not to use it.

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