get_refresh_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes the need for an AAD access token with Power BI scopes and states that the token is never echoed, which is important security context. It also indicates the output includes status, timings, and service errors. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only history tool this is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the auth requirement. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

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?

For a read-only list tool without an output schema, the description covers the key return fields (status, start/end times, service error) and the auth prerequisite. It does not elaborate on response structure or error handling, but the essentials are present. The endpoint mention adds practical context for API familiarity.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds the endpoint mapping ($top=N) and the token handling behavior, but these are marginal. It does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states the verb ('Read') and the resource ('recent refresh history of a published dataset'), and the phrase 'recent refresh history' distinguishes it from triggering refreshes (e.g., sibling refresh_dataset). It also mentions the endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for inspecting refresh history, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., refresh_dataset or get_transaction_status). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, though the read-only nature is implied.

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