Snowflake Cortex Summarize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only English text is supported, but says nothing about cost, model/feature enablement, input length limits, or latency.

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 — everything stated earns its place. It is arguably too terse for the gaps left in parameters and usage, but by structure and size it is efficient.

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. However, for a tool with zero schema description coverage and several closely related Cortex siblings, the description leaves an agent without the constraints needed to call it confidently.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It only hints that the input must be English, offering no guidance on length, format, or whether it accepts a single string vs. multiple passages.

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') plus the engine ('Snowflake Cortex AI'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like snowflake_cortex_complete, which can also produce summaries, so it stops 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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over snowflake_cortex_complete, snowflake_cortex_extract_answer, or snowflake_cortex_sentiment. Usage is only inferable from the verb, and no prerequisites (e.g., Cortex availability, region, cost) are mentioned.

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