execute_card

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'actual data results', but does not disclose caching behavior, permission requirements, or execution impact. With annotations covering safety, the description provides only marginal additional behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists three concrete use cases. There is no superfluous information; every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the core purpose and usage context. While it does not elaborate on the dashboard_id or ignore_cache parameters, the schema descriptions handle those. The description is adequately complete for a moderately complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (card_id, dashboard_id, ignore_cache, collection_preview) already has meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so it stays at the baseline 3 where the schema carries the burden.

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 runs a Metabase card query and returns actual data results, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('card query'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_card (metadata) and execute_query (likely raw SQL) by emphasizing returning the actual data.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'to get current data from existing cards, refresh analytical insights, or programmatically access query results'. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextual enough for an agent to select it.

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