get_card

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds value by detailing what metadata is returned (query definition, visualization settings, collection location, permissions). This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's output scope and what it can learn from the card. It does not add caveats about rate limits or auth, but for a read-only metadata fetch, this is adequate.

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 leads with the main action and then lists details. No redundant words or repeated schema information. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return content. The sibling tool names provide additional context (e.g., execute_card vs. get_card). The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 input schema describes card_id as 'Card ID', and the description does not add further semantic detail beyond 'specific Metabase card'. Since schema coverage is 100% and there is only one simple parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description contributes minimal additional parameter semantics.

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 'Get complete metadata and configuration for a specific Metabase card' and enumerates the included aspects (query definition, visualization settings, collection location, permissions). This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_card (which runs the card) and list_cards (which lists cards). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'use this when you need to examine or understand how a particular card is built.' This implies the appropriate use case for inspection rather than execution or listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient given the sibling tool names and the tool's read-only nature.

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