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 genuinely non-obvious behavior: a missing last_crawled means the URL was never crawled, and traffic metrics are only present if available. It does not say what happens for a URL outside the workspace site or how errors surface, which keeps it below 5.

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 resource, then field semantics, then the sibling redirect, then parameter notes. It is dense but every clause carries information an agent needs for selection; nothing is filler prose.

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 the mid-sentence enumeration of returned fields is partly redundant, and the description is otherwise complete for a two-parameter read tool: it covers the resource, the fallback action, and both parameters. The only gap is edge-case behavior for unknown/out-of-scope URLs.

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 largely does: url is scoped to a full URL on the workspace website, and workspace is the client slug, optional when the account has a single workspace. It stops short of specifying URL format constraints (scheme, trailing slash) or the behavior when workspace is omitted and multiple workspaces exist.

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 precise verb+resource: it returns Bing index status for one specific URL, and it enumerates the exact signals returned (crawl status, last_crawled, anchor_count, traffic). It also explicitly separates itself from bing_submit_urls, so the agent can distinguish indexed-status reading from (re)submission 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?

It names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Nicht indexiert oder veraltet: bing_submit_urls.' That is real routing guidance rather than implication. What is missing is the reverse framing (when the agent should prefer this over bing_crawl_issues, bing_top_pages, or sc_url_inspection for the Google equivalent).

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