Snowflake Describe Function

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 only a list of returned attributes, which the output schema already conveys; it does not mention prerequisites or permission needs. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameter and usage gaps exist.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage routing, the definition is only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about function_signature format (e.g., name(arg_types)) nor about how database/schema_name scope the lookup, leaving required overloading semantics undocumented.

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+resource (describe UDF function) and enumerates what is returned: signature, return type, language, body. The 'UDF/function' framing implicitly separates it from snowflake_describe_procedure, though it never names that sibling or snowflake_list_functions explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (snowflake_list_functions to enumerate, snowflake_describe_procedure for stored procedures). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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