snowflake_describe_network_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool describes, not that it is a read-only operation, what happens if the policy does not exist, or any required permissions. 'Describe' implies non-destructive but is not explicit, and no other behaviors are disclosed, leaving the agent with minimal insight beyond the literal action.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the purpose and the content details, front-loading the key information. There is no wasted text, making it highly 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and an output schema exists (which covers return values). However, the description lacks guidance on parameter usage and any context about prerequisites or error scenarios. It is adequate for a basic describe operation but misses parameter semantics and usage distinctions from similar tools, leaving a few gaps.

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 zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the 'policy_name' parameter at all. It fails to explain what the parameter represents, any format requirements, or how it relates to the output. With no added meaning beyond the schema field name, the description is insufficient for parameter usage.

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 tool describes a network policy, specifying the exact content returned (allowed IP lists, blocked IP lists, and comments). This identifies the verb 'describe' and the resource 'network policy', distinguishing it from sibling tools like snowflake_list_network_policies (which lists policies) and snowflake_describe_network_rule (which targets a different object).

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 implicitly conveys that this is for retrieving detailed information about a specific network policy, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like snowflake_list_network_policies or snowflake_describe_network_rule. There is clear context (describing a policy) but no exclusions or comparisons, so a slight deduction is applied.

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