Snowflake Profile Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a composite operation covering metadata, row count, and column inventory, but it does not disclose cost implications (a row count may require a scan) or idempotency. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for what it covers, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's composite nature.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a composite profiling tool with sibling overlap, the description omits prerequisites, cost expectations, and selection criteria, leaving real gaps in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 says nothing about the three parameters. While database/schema_name/table_name are conventional Snowflake identifiers, the description provides no meaning, defaults, or qualification guidance beyond the self-naming fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Profile') and enumerates the concrete outputs: table metadata, row count, and column inventory. This is clearer than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like snowflake_describe_table or snowflake_inspect_table_with_sample, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'Composite recipe' hints that it bundles several lookups, but the description never says when this is preferable to describe_table, sample_table, or inspect_table_with_sample, leaving the routing decision entirely to inference.

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