Snowflake Describe Network Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context by naming what is returned, but says nothing about permissions needed or behavior for a nonexistent policy.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose with zero filler. It is efficient, though it spends most of its length on fields that an output schema likely already covers.

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 return shape does not need to be spelled out here, and this is a simple read-only tool with one parameter. The only real gap is the unexplained argument format, which is minor for such a straightforward operation.

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% – policy_name carries only a type with no documentation. The description does not compensate by explaining the expected identifier form (e.g., whether it is a bare name or a fully qualified/account-level reference), leaving the single required parameter underspecified.

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) plus resource (network policy) and even enumerates the returned fields (allowed IP lists, blocked IP lists, comments). It implicitly separates itself from snowflake_list_network_policies, but never names the sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'describe' – an agent can infer this is for inspecting a single policy's configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the list sibling, and no prerequisites such as required role or policy-name format.

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