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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: Bing returns weekly-granularity rows, the range snaps to whole weeks, and sub-7-day windows are often empty. This materially affects invocation and is not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the returned fields and ordering, then parameters in a logical order. Every sentence carries information; slightly long, but little waste given the parameter documentation it must supply.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description enumerates the returned columns and notes row_count vs total_listed semantics, plus all parameter behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 full burden and does so: days (default 90), limit (default 50, max 1000), date_from/date_to with YYYY-MM-DD inclusive format and 365-day cap plus precedence over days, page URL scoping, and workspace optionality. Every one of the 6 parameters is given meaning beyond the bare schema.

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+resource (top search queries for the website in Bing) with an explicit metric list and sorting, and explicitly distinguishes itself from bing_traffic by noting row_count is not the website total. An agent can tell it apart from bing_top_pages and bing_traffic 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 clear context for parameters (page filters to queries that surfaced this URL; short ranges under 7 days often empty due to weekly data) and routes the agent to bing_traffic for site totals. Lacks exhaustive when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance for bing_top_pages, but the primary alternative is named.

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