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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: OAuth 2.0 authentication, a detailed data-accuracy contract (only treat tool-returned fields as verified, no invented metrics, derived metrics must be labeled), and the chart_render labeling behavior. This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then use cases, peer reference, auth, chart_render instruction, and data contract. Every sentence contributes necessary context for a multi-action connector, though a slightly tighter phrasing could improve flow without losing information.

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 six distinct actions, two parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the full functional scope, typical use cases, authentication, and the critical data-accuracy contract. It gives an agent everything needed to correctly invoke and interpret results, leaving no significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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%: the action enum has per-value descriptions, and the params object lists exact parameter sets per action. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a connector for Bing Webmaster Tools, enumerating the specific data types it returns (rank/traffic, queries, URL detail, crawl stats, link counts) and explicitly labels it as 'The Bing peer of Google Search Console,' distinguishing it from the sibling search_console_connector without ambiguity.

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 states the primary use cases ('Bing SEO reporting, organic-search visibility, keyword/query analysis, crawl health, and backlink volume') and instructs when to delegate to chart_render for visuals. It implies the Bing-vs-Google distinction via the peer reference but does not explicitly name the alternative connector or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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