snowflake_describe_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool retrieves schema properties, owner, and retention settings. The name 'describe' implies a read-only operation, which is standard across the suite. It does not explicitly say it is non-destructive, but the described action is clearly a query-like operation, which is transparent enough for this context.

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 front-loads the core purpose and key output aspects (properties, owner, retention). There is zero wasted text and it reads clearly. It is appropriately terse for a describe tool.

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 return-value documentation is covered. However, the parameter semantics gap (especially the optional 'database' field) is not addressed, and there is no differentiation from sibling describe tools. The description is functional for a simple describe operation but leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage. It meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks completeness.

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% (the input schema provides no descriptions). The description does not mention the 'schema_name' required parameter or the optional 'database' parameter, nor does it explain how 'database' qualifies the schema lookup. The agent receives no guidance on parameter semantics from either schema or description, making this 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 clearly states the verb 'Describe' and the resource 'schema', and specifies the exact aspects covered: properties, owner, and retention settings. This distinguishes it from sibling describe tools like describe_database and describe_table, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for schema metadata retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_schemas for enumeration, or describe_database for database-level detail). No exclusions or context-linking guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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