get_card_query_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Query result data' entails (e.g., format, size, or pagination). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool that likely interacts with a database system.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant since an output schema exists. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' line could be omitted given the output schema. It's efficient without being overly terse.

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 the complexity (a query tool with no annotations), 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, errors) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'card_id' is an 'ID of the card', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'integer' type. However, it doesn't provide details like valid ranges, where to find card IDs, or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately covers its semantics, but more context would be beneficial.

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 'Get' and the resource 'results of a card's query', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_sql_query' (which runs raw SQL) and 'get_metabase_cards' (which lists cards), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_dashboard_cards' or 'get_dashboard_items' which might retrieve related metadata. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing card), exclusions (e.g., not for dashboard queries), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'execute_sql_query' or 'get_dashboard_cards'. Usage is implied from the name and purpose alone, with no explicit context provided.

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