Execute DAX query and build HTML dashboard

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

No annotations exist, and the description only labels it as an alias without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, data modification, permission requirements). This is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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?

While the tool is a simple alias, the description does not explain its behavior or return values. Given the lack of output schema and moderate parameter count, the description is minimally adequate but could provide more context by referencing execute_dax_report_query's behavior.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information, resulting in a baseline score.

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 explicitly states it is an alias for execute_dax_report_query, clearly identifying its purpose and distinguishing it from siblings by naming the specific tool it replaces.

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 notes it is for compatibility with earlier dashboard workflows, implying when to use (backward compatibility). It names the sibling it aliases, providing an alternative for new workflows, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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