list_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about filtering by source and model relationships but does not disclose potential pagination, result limits, or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main action ('Retrieve all Metabase cards') and the trailing clause provides valuable usage guidance without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema and read-only annotation present, the description adequately covers purpose, filtering options, and typical use cases. It could mention pagination or the shape of the returned list, but for a discovery tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'models' as a source example and 'model relationships', but this adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not provide additional format or behavior details.

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 'Retrieve all Metabase cards' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_card by framing this as a discovery/overview tool with optional filtering. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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: 'discover available cards, find specific cards by type, or get an overview of all analytical content'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this listing tool versus a single-card tool.

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