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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: Bing returns weekly aggregates stamped with a week date, ranges snap to whole weeks, and short windows come back empty — a real trap an agent would otherwise fall into. Minor gap: no note on pagination or latency.

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 returned data shape, then parameter guidance, then the weekly caveat — a sensible order. It is dense but nearly every clause adds operational value; the capitalized 'KORREKTEN' emphasis is slightly informal but harmless.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields, yet it still sketches rows/total/ctr_pct. Combined with the date-range and weekly-granularity caveats, an agent can call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 does: days default 90, date_from/date_to as inclusive YYYY-MM-DD with precedence over days and a 365-day max, and workspace as an optional slug when only one workspace exists. All four parameters are explained with semantics the schema lacks.

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 names the specific metrics (clicks, impressions over time), the row grain (one row per date), and the totals row with ctr_pct. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling bing_top_queries, explaining why this tool yields the correct aggregate numbers.

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?

It states when to use this tool rather than bing_top_queries ('die Summe über bing_top_queries ist kleiner'), plus practical guardrails: weekly aggregation, sub-7-day ranges often empty, date_from/date_to overriding days, and the 365-day cap. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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