analyze_dax_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool executes the query and returns metrics and optionally the execution plan. However, it does not mention whether execution is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any cost/performance caveats beyond being an analysis tool.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, a concise explanatory paragraph, and clearly formatted Args/Returns sections. Every line contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity or duplication.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value as a dictionary containing query results, execution metrics, and optionally the execution plan. It also covers all parameters and the tool's core behavior. It could be slightly stronger with explicit notes on prerequisites or error behavior, but it is largely complete for safe invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: dax_query, workspace, model, and include_execution_plan. It adds useful semantics like 'Name or ID', optionality, and the default behavior of include_execution_plan. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze a DAX query for performance insights and execution plan.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dax_query or sql_query by emphasizing performance analysis and execution plan generation rather than general query execution.

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 clearly implies this tool is for performance analysis and execution plan inspection, which gives the agent a clear sense of when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection among DAX-related siblings.

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