snowflake_describe_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Describe' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it may error on nonexistent databases. It lists output fields, which gives some context, but lacks explicit expectations about permissions or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the operation and its key output aspects. There is no fluff, and the core purpose is immediately visible. It is appropriately sized for the simple one-parameter describe operation.

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. However, the description lacks situational guidance (when to use vs alternatives) and any preconditions. For a simple describe tool, the information is largely sufficient, but missing usage context and parameter details leave it incomplete.

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 schema has a single parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the database_name parameter at all, nor does it explain format, case sensitivity, or fully qualified name handling. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to provide any additional clarity beyond the schema itself.

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 verb 'Describe' and the resource 'database', and lists the specific properties returned (owner, retention time, comment). This distinguishes it from list_database which lists all databases, and from describe_table/schema/warehouse tools, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snowflake_list_databases or snowflake_get_database_ddl. It does not mention conditions such as whether the database must exist, nor does it suggest situations where a describe operation is preferred over a list or DDL retrieval.

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