pbi_search_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive search ('sin distinguir mayusculas'), that it searches in measure DAX, and that for measures it indicates whether the name or expression matched. It does not cover limit/source behavior or error handling, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 brief and well-structured. The primary purpose appears in the first sentence, and parameter details are formatted with backticks for readability. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits semantics for 'limit' and 'source', and there are no annotations to clarify behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity and important context around 'source' (likely live vs. pbip), the description has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'term' (case-insensitive text) and 'kinds' (filters by type), but does not describe 'limit' or 'source'. The latter is particularly ambiguous, and the schema offers no descriptions either.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca objetos del modelo por nombre (y en el DAX de las medidas)', clearly stating it searches model objects by name and within measure DAX. This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools by focusing on search behavior.

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: use this tool to find model objects matching a term, optionally filtered by kind. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use this tool.

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