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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds useful output context: status, last-read date, and address count. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool it adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the alternative is relegated to the second sentence.

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 simple read-only Bing sitemap listing tool with rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It says what is returned and routes the agent to the correct tool for submission.

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 single optional site parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 scope: 'The sitemaps Bing knows for a site, with status, when Bing last read them, and how many addresses they hold.' It distinguishes from the sibling bing_submit by naming it as the submission alternative, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description gives an explicit alternative for submission: 'To submit one, use bing_submit with sitemap.' That is a clear when-not/alternative cue, though it does not explicitly compare against other retrieval siblings like gsc_sitemaps or sitemap_check.

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