pbi_compare_live_to_pbip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the comparison outputs (tables/measures only on one side, DAX differences) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive. Given 'compare' implies no mutation, this is adequate 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the use case and output highlights. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, zero parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It explains what is compared and what kinds of differences are reported, which is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no further parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'compare' with a clear resource distinction: the live model versus the TMDL on disk. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like audit functions by stating it detects in-memory unsaved changes.

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?

It explicitly states a primary use case ('to know if there are unsaved changes in memory'), which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents to select it appropriately.

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