Get All Tables Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the LIMITED index-stats read and its slowness on very large databases, plus the result ordering (largest first). It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits, which is a minor gap.

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?

One dense sentence plus a caveat sentence, with the payload list front-loaded and the performance warning placed last where it belongs. The return-field enumeration is long but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so by enumerating the columns and their sort order. Combined with the performance caveat and the sibling pointer, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only result-size/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single databaseName parameter is fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the per-database scoping ('for one database') without adding default or format detail, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 verb+resource (a per-database tables overview) and enumerates the exact payload: row count, size, primary key, index counts, index health, workload, and access pattern. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting that mssql_table_info covers a few tables instead of the whole database.

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 states the scope condition (whole database vs a few tables) and names the alternative tool (mssql_table_info) for the narrower case. It also flags the operational cost — index physical stats are read at LIMITED level and can be slow on very large databases — which is precisely the when-to-avoid guidance an agent needs.

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