run_dax_as_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the second-connection mechanism, role validation, and read-only nature. It adds safety-critical context (typos can't silently run unfiltered) that goes beyond typical descriptions, though it doesn't cover every edge case.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, mechanism, and safety guarantee.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains purpose, behavior, and safety guarantees, and notes that it returns rows. It could mention result format or explicitly compare to run_dax, but the core context is solid.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what the schema already says (roles comma-separated, EVALUATE prefix, effectiveUserName for dynamic RLS) but does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond the 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 description clearly states 'Run a DAX query AS a security role' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from plain run_dax by explicitly mentioning role-based row-level filters, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the engine to apply role-based RLS. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., run_dax) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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