pbi_source_impact

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the operation is a read that returns affected artifacts, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it says nothing about cost or latency for what is likely a broad lineage scan, how ambiguous or empty substring matches are handled, or whether results are nested/aggregated.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first and the return payload second; no filler or repetition. The colon-separated return list is efficient, though the pre-colon clause stacks five noun types and reads a bit longer than needed.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both purpose and the categories of returned artifacts, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits result granularity and cost/ambiguity behavior, which matters for a potentially broad impact scan.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a 'database, server, schema/view, or object substring'; the description adds SharePoint site and table name as accepted inputs, which slightly extends the schema's meaning. With full structured coverage the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds only marginal interpretation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('impact analysis for an upstream database, server, view, SharePoint site, or table name') and enumerates exactly what comes back (tables, semantic models, DAX measures, downstream reports). That return enumeration implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like pbi_measure_lineage, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is clear from the phrase 'end-to-end impact analysis for an upstream ... source', which tells an agent to reach for it when asking what breaks if a source changes. No explicit exclusions or named alternative (e.g., pbi_measure_lineage) are given, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed.

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