audit_model_and_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'audit' without explaining whether the tool writes outcomes, needs a workspace connection, is read-only, or has side effects. It also does not clarify how the PBIP folder is located or consumed.

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?

One clear sentence with no filler; the acronyms in parentheses quickly convey the audit types and the target is stated up front. 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?

There are 7 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description offers only a high-level summary. An agent would not know how to configure bpa_ruleset, dax_measures_json, or which boolean toggles are available, so it is materially incomplete for correct 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps loosely to bpa, dax_lint, and accessibility. It leaves naming, bpa_ruleset, and dax_measures_json unexplained, and gives no detail about toggle semantics or how to supply a ruleset or measures JSON.

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 names a specific verb ('audit'), a concrete resource ('PBIP folder'), and the exact audit dimensions ('BPA + DAX lint + WCAG'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit_report_ux_and_storytelling, whose focus is UX/storytelling rather than model/report compliance.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternative tools. It implies use for composite audits, but does not explain how it compares to pre_deploy_check, audit_report_ux_and_storytelling, or apply_theme_and_accessibility_rules.

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