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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that, notably the retention window ('Bing keeps about 6 months') and the specific classes of data returned. It stops short of describing limits or pagination behavior for the 'limit' param.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core behavior and packs in only substantive detail. It is somewhat run-on and could split the per-address and per-site clauses, but every clause earns its place.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations carrying safety and no output schema, the description does the needed work of enumerating return categories (index, errors, issues, find/last-crawl/response) and the 6-month retention. The main omission is clarifying the relationship between the url and site parameters and pagination of the limit-ed issue list.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, site, and limit with defaults and bounds. The description only loosely gestures at the url parameter ('for one address') and adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 resource and specific data categories (daily crawled pages, index pages, crawl errors, per-address issues, plus find/last-crawl/response for one address). It is clearly a Bing crawl-data retrieval tool. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as crawl_report, gsc_inspect_url, or page_audit, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description hints at two modes ('crawl issues per address' vs 'for one address ... when Bing found and last crawled it'), which loosely maps to the site vs url parameters. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over gsc_inspect_url or crawl_report, and no note on whether url and site are mutually exclusive.

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