MCP SQL Agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read operation ('Get detailed information'), it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens if the table doesn't exist, whether it's cached or real-time, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details (columns and sample data) without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is too minimal—it lacks behavioral context and parameter guidance, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying 'table_name' is required. It doesn't explain what format the table name should be in, whether it's case-sensitive, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get detailed information') and resources ('about a specific table'), and it specifies what information is included ('columns and sample data'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_schema', which might also provide schema information about tables.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_schema', 'list_tables', or 'query_data'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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