run_saved_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'execute' and does not mention return format, error behavior, authentication needs, side effects, or whether card parameters are supported or ignored. The effect of running a card is underspecified.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., query results, row counts, errors), whether parameters can be passed to the card, or what happens for cards that require parameters. These are meaningful gaps even for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 schema already fully describes card_id as 'The saved question/card ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value ('by ID') and mentions card type compatibility, but does not clarify ID format, whether it's a number or string (schema says number), or any restrictions on which card IDs are valid. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 tool executes a saved question (card) by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions support for both MBQL and native SQL cards, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_native_query and list_saved_questions.

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: the tool is for running an existing saved card by ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., cards with parameters, unsupported card types). The mention of MBQL and native SQL gives some context but no direct comparison to siblings.

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