semantic_model_execute_dax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation ('via the Power BI API'), and does not disclose the response format, error behavior, or that DAX queries return tabular results. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is immediately scannable for an agent deciding whether to read further.

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 tool with 3 fully documented parameters, no nested objects, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for invocation. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description never hints at what the response contains, which an agent would need to consume the query results. All invocation-relevant information is otherwise present.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The query parameter even includes a helpful example ('EVALUATE Sales'), and workspaceId/semanticModelId clarify the Power BI identifiers. The description text itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') with a clear resource ('DAX query against a semantic model') and channel ('via the Power BI API'). This distinguishes it from sibling execute tools like sql_endpoint_execute_query, eventhouse_execute_kql, and graphql_api_execute_query, as well as from semantic model management tools like semantic_model_refresh and semantic_model_get_details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains several other query-execution tools (sql_endpoint_execute_query, eventhouse_execute_kql, graphql_api_execute_query), and this description does nothing to help an agent choose among them or note prerequisites such as required Power BI permissions or DAX language familiarity.

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