Cortex Summarize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no input-size limits, no cost/latency note, no mention of the English-only constraint's implications.

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 tight sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero waste.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. But for an AI-backed summarization tool with openWorldHint, the description omits input constraints (length, language limitations) that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (text) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states the input is 'English text', giving minimal format/type guidance, but adds no length, encoding, or content constraints beyond what the schema implies.

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?

States a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (English text) and names the underlying engine (Snowflake Cortex AI), distinguishing it from cortex_complete, cortex_sentiment, and cortex_translate. It's clear what it does, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cortex_complete or cortex_extract_answer, nor any constraints on input (e.g., length limits, language). Usage is only implied.

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