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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world) by disclosing cost (FREE, no credits), the BYOK auth requirement (BING_WEBMASTER_API_KEY), and the exact failure payloads ('not_configured', 'no_matching_site'). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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 core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the error/auth details are useful, but the single dense paragraph packs a lot together. Slightly long, though every clause carries 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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the metadata returned (anchor count, discovery/last-crawled dates, HTTP status, page classification) and describes the error object shapes. Auth prerequisites and cost are also 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces includeChildren ('the same metadata for every URL Bing discovered under it') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get index/crawl metadata) and resource (one URL on a project's matched Bing site), and even names the underlying endpoints GetUrlInfo/GetChildrenUrlInfo. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_bing_url_links or get_bing_backlinks, which cover links rather than index/crawl status.

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 gives clear context for use and explicitly conditions the child-URL behavior on includeChildren. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_bing_url_links or inspect_urls instead), so routing is left partly to inference.

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