Get Server Version

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 profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no auth requirements, execution cost, or freshness/caching notes — so it neither contradicts nor enriches 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, zero filler. The returned fields are front-loaded and the operative usage instruction ('call first') is placed at the end where it is easy to act on.

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 returned facets, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether this call answers its question. It stops just short of stating output shape or whether the values span all nodes in a clustered/HADR setup, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead focuses on what is returned.

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 (server version) and enumerates the exact facets returned — version, edition, patch level/CU, collation, clustering/HADR, licensing — which cleanly separates it from near-siblings like mssql_db_collation and mssql_db_info. Combined with the 'Get Server Version' title, an agent knows precisely what this returns without opening the 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?

It gives explicit placement guidance: 'Call first in any health check.' That is a concrete when-to-use signal. It does not name exclusions or competing tools, but for a zero-parameter server-level introspection call the guidance is clear enough.

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