pbi_audit_report_only

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the specific checks performed (empty pages, visuals without title, broken fields, duplicates, inconsistent canvas sizes, page geometry), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (though an output schema exists), or any side effects, leaving room for assumption.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main scope and followed by a bullet-like list of coverage areas. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential scope and criteria well. It clearly defines what the audit covers and excludes, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately. Minor omission: it does not describe the return format, but the output schema handles that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 'Audita solo el informe PBIR' (audits only the PBIR report), identifying the exact resource and action. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding 'las reglas del modelo semantico' (semantic model rules), which differentiates it from pbi_audit_model and pbi_audit_project.

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 by stating it audits 'solo el informe PBIR' and explicitly excludes semantic model rules, implying when not to use this tool. It does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use guidance, but the exclusion helps the agent choose correctly among sibling audit tools.

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