get_metabase_playground_link

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds context by explaining that the tool generates a link, not direct results, and that it enables interactive exploration. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's side-effect-free nature, though it doesn't discuss potential link properties (e.g., expiry or auth).

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 sentence that conveys the core function and use case efficiently. The clause 'allows users to see results and experiment with data' is slightly redundant given 'interactive query exploration', but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the key verb 'Generate'.

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 link-generating tool with an output schema present and 100% parameter documentation, the description sufficiently covers the main context: generating a playground link for interactive exploration. It lacks minor details like whether the link is shareable or ephemeral, but these are not critical for a tool of this complexity.

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 both parameters with descriptions (query: 'The SQL query to execute in the playground', display: 'Display type (table, bar, line, etc.)'), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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?

This description clearly states the tool's function: generating a Metabase playground link. The phrase 'for interactive query exploration' specifies the purpose and differentiates it from siblings like execute_query or get_table_data, which return data rather than a link.

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 context: 'interactive query exploration' and 'user-friendly interface' suggest this is for users who want to see and experiment with results rather than just get raw data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of full guidance.

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