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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine operational context beyond that: the 2,000 inspections/day/property cap and the fact that usage is tracked across both UI and MCP calls, which is what makes the number actionable. It stops short of stating freshness/caching of the counter.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and return shape, each sentence carrying distinct information (trigger, return fields, cap mechanics, alternative tool). Slightly dense but no filler.

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 return values need not be documented, yet the description still names the three fields. Combined with the cap mechanics and the sibling disambiguation, an agent has everything needed to select and call this correctly.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It implies the parameter is the GSC property ('for a property today') but never states the expected format (e.g., sc-domain: vs URL prefix) or that an invalid property yields an error. Partial compensation, so an adequate 3.

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 verb and resource ('Returns the remaining URL inspection quota for a property today') and enumerates the returned fields (count, limit, remaining). It explicitly disambiguates from the nearest sibling by naming get_bing_url_submission_quota.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks how many URL inspections are left today'), a proactive use case ('before inspecting several URLs' / 'before bulk inspections'), and a clear exclusion with the alternative tool named. Nothing is left to inference.

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