Cortex Complete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of cost/latency, model availability, token limits, or that temperature drives nondeterminism despite the idempotent claim. It repeats the tool name rather than disclosing behavior.

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 no filler; the action is stated first and examples follow. It is terse rather than bloated, though it is arguably too short to do its job.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no usage guidance, and no behavioral notes, the definition leaves an agent guessing about tuning parameters and appropriate invocation conditions.

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 description must carry all four parameters. It only implicitly documents the 'model' parameter by listing valid model names (useful given no enum), while prompt, max_tokens, and temperature are left completely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Run LLM completion using Snowflake Cortex AI') and grounds it with concrete model examples. It is clearly distinguishable from task-specific siblings like cortex_summarize or cortex_sentiment, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer on its own when to pick general completion over the specialized cortex_summarize/translate/extract_answer tools.

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