snowflake_account_usage_summary

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. It states the tool is a 'composite recipe' but does not explain what that entails—whether it executes multiple queries, what side effects occur, or whether it is read-only. The 7-day window and metrics are disclosed, but the operational behavior is opaque.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the time window. It contains no filler and every word adds value. Ideal structure for a tool with no parameters.

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 an output schema present, return values are presumably covered elsewhere. However, the description leaves the meaning of 'composite recipe' unexplained, and it does not clarify the operational scope (e.g., whether it spans multiple accounts or warehouses). For a no-parameter tool, this is adequate but could be stronger about what the summary actually reflects.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are none. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no deficiency to penalize.

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 produces a summary of warehouse compute credits and storage consumption over the past 7 days. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from the mostly CRUD-oriented sibling tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but no sibling serves the same purpose.

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 others, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of 'composite recipe' hints it might combine multiple operations, but it does not explain when an agent should select it over, say, querying usage views directly or using the health check tool.

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