Get Tables Index Health

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful substance beyond that: it discloses the tool returns advisory output including a suggested maintenance script, i.e. it advises rather than mutates. It says nothing about cost on large tables, permissions, or result shape, so it is additive but not rich.

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 with the resource first and the payload enumerated after the colon. No filler, though the enumeration could be slightly tightened.

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 has to convey what comes back, and it does name the four output areas (fragmentation, usage, fill factor advice, script). That is adequate for an assessment tool, though it leaves ambiguity about how 'usage' is measured and whether non-table objects are supported.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only says 'the given tables', adding no format, plural/singular, or database-qualification guidance 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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Index health for the given tables') and enumerates the specific outputs (fragmentation, usage, fill factor advice, maintenance script), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as mssql_db_index_health (database-scope) or mssql_table_missing_indexes, leaving the agent to infer the table-level scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the analogous database-level tool. The agent gets no help deciding between this, mssql_db_index_health, and mssql_table_missing_indexes.

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