snowflake_describe_network_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned (mode, type, value list) but does not mention error conditions, required privileges, or whether the operation is read-only. For a describe operation, this is minimal but insufficiently rich—it does not warn about potential failures or side effects.

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, efficient sentence that lists the returned attributes. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds information. No fluff or redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter hints.

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?

While an output schema exists (which relieves the description of explaining return values), the description lacks critical context for calling the tool correctly: how to specify the network rule (parameters), any requirements, and when to use this over sibling tools. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It says 'of a network rule' but does not indicate that rule_name, database, or schema_name are needed to identify the rule. The agent must infer from the schema structure alone, which is a gap given that the description could clarify the parameter roles.

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 a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('network rule'), and enumerates the attributes returned (mode, type, value list). This distinguishes it from other describe_* tools by naming the exact object type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like describe_network_policy, so it falls short of a 5.

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 prerequisites, typical scenarios, or cases where a different describe tool (e.g., describe_network_policy) would be more appropriate. Usage context is entirely absent, relying on the agent to infer from the resource name.

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