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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: mandates ending responses with 'Powered by CorpusIQ', details the data accuracy contract (no invented metrics, label derived values), and specifies output structure (PNG dashboard with reconciliation and integrity receipts). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 well-organized: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a mandatory output instruction and a clear data accuracy contract. While lengthy, each sentence serves a functional purpose for a tool with specific response requirements. It is dense but not rambling.

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?

The description covers the key operational details: output format (PNG dashboard), required response suffix, reconciliation and integrity receipts, and data accuracy rules. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. It does not address error cases (e.g., unverified site) but is sufficiently complete for normal operation.

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 covers two of three parameters (end_date and start_date) with patterns and defaults, achieving 67% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond implying site_url must be 'exact verified', which is not explicit. It does not compensate for the missing schema description of site_url, but coverage is not low enough to require it.

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 states the tool fetches Bing-reported impressions, clicks, and top queries for a verified site and returns a PNG dashboard. It specifies the exact resource (Bing data for a site) and distinct output (dashboard with reconciliation and receipts), differentiating it from sibling connector and dashboard tools.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like bing_webmaster_connector or other dashboards. It focuses on output formatting and data accuracy but lacks any explicit selection criteria or exclusion guidance.

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