Snowflake Describe Alert

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 and reach of the operation are covered. The description adds that the operation surfaces condition SQL, action SQL, schedule and warehouse — useful inspection context — but says nothing about permission requirements or error behavior when the alert does not exist.

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 economical sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the task, though the enumerated return fields read more like an output summary than guidance on invoking the tool.

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 the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the optional database/schema_name qualifiers, whose role in resolving the alert_name is left unexplained — a moderate shortfall for a 3-param lookup tool.

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 compensate for three undocumented parameters (database, alert_name, schema_name) and does not. The word 'warehouse' in the description refers to a returned attribute, not the optional database/schema_name qualifiers, so it adds no parameter meaning — particularly unclear whether database/schema_name are needed to disambiguate the alert name.

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 (describe) and resource (alert) and enumerates the attributes returned — condition SQL, action SQL, schedule, warehouse. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like snowflake_list_alerts (enumeration) and snowflake_create_alert/drop_alert (mutation). It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent can infer it inspects an existing alert, but nothing states when this is preferable to snowflake_list_alerts or how it relates to the other alert tools.

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