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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real context on top: 'latest = jüngster Tag', the 30-day default, the precedence of explicit date bounds over days, and that workspace is optional when only one workspace exists. It omits nothing critical, though it says nothing about rate limits or data freshness lag beyond 'latest'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameters, then the alternative tool – a sensible order with no filler sentences. The long metric enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it doubles as a signal of what the report covers.

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 read-only reporting tool with four optional parameters, the description covers scope, time-window semantics, workspace scoping, and the alternative tool for a neighbouring need. With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, so what remains missing is minor.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it defines days as 'die letzten N Tage (Standard 30)', gives the 'YYYY-MM-DD' format and precedence rule for date_from/date_to, and explains workspace as the client slug that is optional for single-workspace accounts. All four parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 verb and resource ('Wie Bingbot die Website crawlt, je Tag') and enumerates the exact per-day metrics returned, so an agent knows precisely what data this yields. It also names the sibling bing_crawl_issues for a related but distinct need, separating the two without opening either 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?

Gives concrete selection guidance: use days for the last N days, but date_from/date_to take precedence, and route to bing_crawl_issues for individual faulty URLs. It does not contrast with adjacent report tools like bing_traffic or bing_top_pages, so the routing picture is clear but not exhaustive.

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