Horizon Get Column Lineage

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is naming the data source: Snowflake Horizon Access History. That usefully implies lineage is derived from observed access rather than catalog metadata, but the description never states that consequence (possible incompleteness/observation-window dependency) or any scope limits.

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 and the key concept (column lineage) first. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than maximal for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters, only a third documented, and no scoping/permission context for an open-world tool, an agent still cannot tell how to control window size, result limits, or qualification scope from the description alone.

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 coverage is only 33%: the two documented parameters describe quoting conventions, while days, limit, database and schema_name are undocumented in both schema and description. The description explains none of them — notably it never says days is a lookback window or what limit caps — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Trace origin and transformation lineage for a column"), which clearly separates it from the coarser sibling horizon_get_object_lineage by naming the unit of analysis (column). It does not explicitly route the agent between the two lineage tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that the table/column must be in the current connection's account), and no mention of the sibling horizon_get_object_lineage for table-level lineage. Usage is only implied by the verb 'trace'.

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