Get Database Collation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the notion that a single database's default collation is returned; it says nothing about permissions, latency, or error behavior. Adequate but thin given the low bar set by annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. The lead-in 'Database collation:' is slightly redundant with the sentence that follows it, costing a little efficiency, but overall it is tightly written.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (the default collation of one database) and points at the companion tool for conflict diagnosis. Only the return shape and the default-database fallback are left implicit, which is minor for this complexity level.

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%; the single parameter databaseName is fully documented in the schema including its default to the connected database. The description adds no syntax, naming, or fallback detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope: the default collation of one database. The implied verb (retrieve) matches the title 'Get Database Collation', so an agent can identify the operation. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling mssql_db_info or mssql_all_db_info, which likely also expose collation-related data.

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?

It offers a contextual hint ('Use with mssql_db_collation_mismatches for collation conflict errors'), which implies the scenario where this tool is relevant. However, it never states when to call this instead of the mismatches tool, nor what the pairing actually accomplishes, leaving the usage decision partly to inference.

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