build_crossretailer_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and provides substantial context: it lists what gets built, mentions optional 'clearPages/pagePrefix' additive behavior, and requires the pbix to be closed. It does not fully define the side effects of clearPages or error/failure behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 dense but efficiently front-loaded: purpose, config, outputs, then constraints. Every sentence adds meaningful information. The 'RECIPE:' label and the absence of visual formatting for nested config details slightly reduce scannability, preventing a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, config structure, produced visuals, and operational prerequisites. It even includes a post-condition ('Verify the render in Desktop after'), making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 two input parameters are opaque strings, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by specifying the config structure: compareTable/compareColumn, retailerA/retailerB with label/table/measure, optional totalMeasure, slicers, and clearPages/pagePrefix. This gives the agent a working understanding of the main parameter's content.

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 clearly identifies a unique recipe: 'a Total-Market compare page across two retailers/panels' and pairs it with conform_dimension, distinguishing it from generic report builders. It also enumerates the specific output components (banner, slicer bar, KPI row, by-entity table, A-vs-B grouped bar), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces.

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 when to use: for total-market compare pages across two retailers, and notes it 'pairs with conform_dimension' as a prerequisite. It provides operational guidance ('The pbix must be CLOSED. Verify the render in Desktop after.') but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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