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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the aggregation window semantics and, importantly, the notConfigured: true return when no Bing API key is set up, which is non-obvious failure behavior an agent should anticipate.

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 tight sentences with no filler. Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the counterpart routing hint follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 need not explain return values, and it still covers purpose, scope, counterpart, and the key notConfigured error state. Only minor gaps remain, such as nothing on limit/ranking behavior, but those are handled by the schema.

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 75% and the parameters (limit, startDate, endDate, siteUrl) are largely self-documented in the schema. The description only indirectly touches the window parameters via 'aggregated across the window' and adds no syntax or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (top landing pages on Bing Webmaster Tools) with explicit scope (aggregated across the window) and enumerates the metrics returned (clicks, impressions, CTR as 0-100 percentage, impression-weighted average position). It also positions itself against the sibling query_top_pages as the Bing counterpart, so an agent can route between Google and Bing data 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?

Naming query_top_pages as the counterpart implies when to reach for it (Bing instead of Google data), which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or distinction from the other close Bing siblings such as get_bing_page_queries or get_bing_query_page_stats, leaving selection partly to inference.

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