snowflake_describe_iceberg_table

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb 'describe' implies a read-only operation, and the listed aspects (schema, catalog integration, external volume) indicate inspection, not mutation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any prerequisites like permissions. Given that 'describe' is inherently safe, a score of 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that lists exactly what the tool reports. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, only one of which is required, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how database and schema_name are used or whether they default to the current context. While the output schema exists, the input semantics are unclear, making successful invocation uncertain.

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%, and the description mentions none of the parameters (database, schema_name, table_name). The agent is left to infer that database and schema_name are optional and that table_name is required, but no guidance is given on how these combine to identify the table (e.g., fully qualified name resolution). This is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'describe' with a clear resource 'Iceberg table' and lists the aspects covered (schema, catalog integration, external volume). This distinguishes it from generic table operations like snowflake_describe_table, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use only for Iceberg tables'.

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. It does not mention that this is for Iceberg tables specifically or when to choose it over snowflake_describe_table. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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