Bing quick wins (positions 5-15)

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds real context beyond them: the required BING_WEBMASTER_API_KEY, where to obtain it, the best-effort config_missing failure mode, the sort order, and the structural limitation that results carry no url. That is meaningful disclosure for a data-fetch tool.

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?

Three short sentences/paragraphs, front-loaded with what it does, then the sibling contrast, then the operational requirement. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the key caveat (no url field) and ordering. Combined with a fully documented input schema and auth/failure notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the rationale behind the position window (5-15 = quick wins) and notes non-trivial impressions, giving semantic framing beyond the raw defaults. It does not document limit/window syntax itself, so not a 5.

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 and resource (scan Bing Webmaster Tools for queries in positions 5-15 with non-trivial impressions) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling gsc_quick_wins by noting the query-level vs (page, query) distinction. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative (gsc_quick_wins) and the structural reason to choose it or not (query-level only, no url). It also supplies the motivational context for using it at all (Bing index backs Copilot/ChatGPT/Perplexity grounding). No explicit 'when-not-to-use' beyond that contrast, so it falls just short of 5.

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