validate_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds scope context by excluding data evaluation, which is genuinely useful. It still says nothing about what a validation failure looks like, how errors are reported, or whether validation is strict versus advisory.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The capability comes first and the scoping exclusion immediately after, which is exactly the right ordering for a validation tool.

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 simple single-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should hint at what validation produces (pass/fail, diagnostics list). Combined with the unexplained 'name' parameter, an agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to interpret the result.

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?

There is a single required parameter, 'name', with zero schema description coverage and a regex pattern that hints at a report identifier. The description never clarifies whether 'name' is a report name, file name, or path, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces. With 0% coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run Microsoft PBIR structural validation on a local report.' The domain qualifier (PBIR, structural) makes the operation concrete. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, inspect_project, which an agent might reasonably pick instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clause 'Does not evaluate report data' sets a useful negative boundary on when this tool is not the right call. However, there is no positive guidance on when to run validation versus inspecting a project, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the report must be local and already open.

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