pbi_normalize_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies geometry, respects margins, leaves compliant elements untouched, and compares audit scores before/after. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or the dry_run parameter's effect.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable detail (behavior, constraints, audit comparison) without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core behavior well and the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., that a report must be open) and does not clarify the dry_run/request_id parameters, leaving some context gaps for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters (dry_run, request_id), and the description does not mention either parameter. It provides no explanation of what dry_run does (e.g., preview vs. apply) or what request_id is for, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 the tool's action: 'Normaliza la geometria de TODAS las paginas del informe' (normalizes geometry of ALL pages). It specifies what normalization entails (brings overflow inside canvas, scales up too-small items, respects margins) and distinguishes from the sibling tool pbi_normalize_page_layout by emphasizing 'TODAS las paginas'.

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 implies usage for full-report normalization and clarifies what it does not do ('No reacomoda lo que ya cumple' - does not rearrange what already complies). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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