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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: granularity is daily, totals compare against the prior period, Bingbot crawl data is included, and top queries/pages are limited to 25 by default (max 100). It does not discuss auth requirements or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage this is a strong addition.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states what is read, then layers in periods, defaults, and limits. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given a four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the major returned data categories (daily clicks/impressions, prior-period totals, crawl stats, top queries/pages) and the meaning of two parameters. It lacks explanation of how to obtain 'connectionId' and does not describe response structure, but it is largely complete for an agent to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the allowed values for 'days' and the purpose of 'limit', which the schema does not convey. However, it provides no explanation for the required 'connectionId' or 'siteUrl' parameters, leaving a material gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource: Bing clicks, impressions, Bingbot crawl stats, top queries, and pages. It clearly distinguishes this from adjacent tools like get_bing_keyword_volume and list_bing_sites by focusing on a site's Bing performance report.

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?

It clearly establishes the context—reading a site's Bing performance over selectable periods—so an agent knows when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_search_console_report or list_bing_sites, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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