get_card_dashboards

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar for additional behavioral disclosure. The description adds no extra context beyond purpose, such as error handling, output format details, or dependency behavior. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 one sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and resource, followed by three concrete use cases. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and practical use cases. It lacks explicit mention of edge cases (e.g., behavior if card does not exist), but the output schema and readOnly annotation mitigate any ambiguity.

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 covers the single parameter card_id with the description 'Card ID' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds all dashboards that include a specific Metabase card, using a specific verb ('Find') and explicit resource ('dashboards') with a qualifying relationship to a card. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_dashboards (which lists all dashboards) and get_dashboard_cards (which lists cards in a dashboard).

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 explicit use cases: 'understand where a card is being used, track dependencies before making changes, or find related analytical content'. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.

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