Get Missing Indexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the ranking fields (urgency, improvement %, uses, equality, inequality, included columns) and the filtering thresholds (1000+ rows, real query volume), which materially shape what comes back.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, then the ranking fields and filtering thresholds. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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 usefully enumerates the ranking columns and the row/volume filters, and annotations cover the safety profile. Adequate for calling the tool correctly, though it could note that results are advisory recommendations.

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% and the single parameter's description ('Target database. Defaults to connected database.') already fully explains it. The description only echoes this with 'for one database', adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (missing indexes) with a clear scope (for one database) and names the data source (missing-index DMVs). The 'one database' scope distinguishes it from the table-level sibling mssql_table_missing_indexes without opening a schema.

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?

Describes what the tool returns but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing versus alternatives like mssql_table_missing_indexes or mssql_db_index_health. The agent must infer the use case.

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