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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a metadata-reading helper. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the sequencing requirement, what each request returns (workspace_id, brand_id, available_actions), and that actions_details yields the exact request body and required identifiers. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no penalty there.

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?

Step-numbered, front-loaded layout makes the workflow scannable and every bullet maps to a distinct request mode. The repeated 'xxxxxx' placeholder is slightly noisy but communicates the array shape efficiently.

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 five-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description supplies the full call sequence, the dependency ordering, and per-mode outcomes. Only the `platform` parameter's role is left unaddressed, a minor gap given everything else is covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: each `request` enum value is explained with its inputs and outputs, and the `actions` array format is demonstrated. The `platform` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters undocumented in both places.

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 identifies this as a discovery/setup helper for Bing Webmaster Tools queries and enumerates its four request modes (accounts, actions_details, available_actions, brands). It is distinguishable from the execute_action and query_data siblings by being purely about planning and metadata retrieval, though the phrase 'planning ... data queries' is slightly abstract without the step breakdown.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a two-step workflow: call request='accounts' first, then request='actions_details' which is marked REQUIRED before querying. Optional calls are labeled Optional, with a note that available_actions is already included in the accounts response, preventing redundant calls.

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