optimize_report_performance

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is heuristic, read-only in spirit ('Reads pages/*/page.json'), and describes the output shape (0-100 score, estimated load, hotspots with severity). It doesn't state side effects explicitly, but reading behavior is clearly implied.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the tool's domain; the second covers inputs, scan pattern, and output. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Covers purpose, method, and output sufficiently, and the output schema likely fills return-value details dash; however, the missing target_load_ms semantics and any guidance about when to use/avoid it leave a noticeable gap for a tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly clarifies pbip_path via the pages/*/page.json read pattern. target_load_ms is not mentioned at all, leaving agents to guess how the threshold is used in scoring or hotspot classification.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a heuristic performance analyzer for PBIR pages, states the specific files it reads, and names the anti-patterns it detects. This makes its function and scope unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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 clear context (use when analyzing perceived load of PBIR pages), but it never explicitly states when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't mislead, but the guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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