snowflake_profile_table

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It says 'composite recipe' implying multiple operations, but doesn't mention read-only nature, potential cost, or side effects. Minimal behavioral info beyond the outcome.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with 'Composite recipe'. Concise but somewhat terse, lacking necessary detail.

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?

For a composite profiling tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter optionality, any prerequisites, or return value expectations, leaving agent uncertain.

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 coverage is 0%, and description provides no parameter context. It doesn't explain database, schema_name, or table_name beyond their names, offering no added meaning.

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?

Description states it profiles table metadata, row count, and column inventory, which is a specific composite verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like describe_table by mentioning row count and column inventory, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The 'composite recipe' hints it's a bundle, but it doesn't state when to prefer it over describe_table or sample_table. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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