Get Collation Mismatches

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description's added value is in disclosing the scan scope (dbo schema columns only) and the comparison basis (database default collation). It stops short of describing return shape or any rate limits, but adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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, front-loaded with the core definition and followed by a brief diagnostic rationale. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description explains what is returned and why it matters. It does not enumerate result columns, but an output schema is absent and the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single databaseName parameter is fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (collation mismatches among columns) and narrows scope to the dbo schema and database default. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling mssql_db_collation, but lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternatives.

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 diagnostic note 'A common cause of collation conflict errors in joins with temp tables' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, prerequisite, or comparison to sibling tools.

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