audit_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: one ranked list is returned, a failing check surfaces in `checks_failed` without suppressing other results, and `not_checked` discloses audit blind spots. It also states the pbix_path default, which is materially useful behavior for an agent to know.

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 entry-point directive is front-loaded, the long parenthetical of check categories is efficient enumeration rather than filler, and the trailing sentences each add a distinct behavioral fact. Slightly dense but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still clarifies the important result fields (checks_failed, not_checked). For a high-complexity aggregate tool the behavior story is complete; only the undocumented parameters keep it from a 5.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only pbix_path (defaults to the open file's path); the required `instance` parameter is completely unexplained, and include_traces / include_data_quality get no indication of what they toggle beyond their names.

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 action (runs every check across the whole model) plus explicit scope by enumerating the check categories, and distinguishes itself from siblings as the aggregator whose findings are tagged with the detail tool to call. An agent can tell it apart from check_relationship_integrity or analyze_folding_risk 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?

"START HERE for a full review" gives an unambiguous entry-point rule, and the note that each finding is tagged with the tool for full detail points at the alternatives. It does not state when to skip the audit (e.g. narrow single-check queries), so it falls just short of explicit when-not guidance.

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