Snowflake Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Composite' does hint that this fans out into multiple checks rather than one query, which is useful, but the description says nothing about latency, batching, permissions, or cost of the credit-consumption lookup. Adds some context beyond annotations, not much.

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 sentence with the scope front-loaded after a short label; every clause names a distinct check and nothing is wasted.

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 details need not be restated, and the description enumerates all four areas the health check spans. What is missing is guidance on the composite nature's implications (multiple round trips, how results are aggregated), but for a no-param read-only tool this is close to complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to scope the check, and schema coverage is effectively complete for an empty object.

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 names a specific action (health check) and enumerates the exact areas covered: connection, active session, warehouse state, and credit consumption. No sibling tool does the same aggregate check, so an agent can distinguish it. The only wart is the jargon phrase 'Composite recipe', which is not standard tool vocabulary.

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 implied by the name and domain (run this to assess account/connection health), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the overlapping siblings like snowflake_get_current_context, snowflake_get_warehouse_load_history, or snowflake_account_usage_summary. No when-not guidance or prerequisites such as required role/permissions.

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