Get DB Column Design Issues

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the safety burden is off the description. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the detection thresholds (6000 bytes near the 8060-byte limit) and that risky types come with a suggested replacement, which goes 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and then lists the three detection categories. Tight and waste-free, though the parenthetical thresholds make it moderately dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of describing the return content, and it does enumerate the three issue categories the agent will receive. It stops short of describing result shape or severity fields, but for a read-only diagnostic it is nearly complete.

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% with a single optional parameter (databaseName) fully described in the schema, including its default to the connected database. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 the specific resource (column design issues) and enumerates exactly what it detects: deprecated types, risky types with suggested replacements, and oversized row-width tables. This is far more informative than a tautology and implicitly distinguishes it from schema-inventory siblings like mssql_db_tables, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over related tools like mssql_db_tables or mssql_table_info. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the content list alone.

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