bing_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains results are normalized, fetched from public Bing HTML/async pages, and may return 503 on challenges. This is transparent, though it lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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 sentences cover purpose, behavior, and error condition efficiently. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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 purpose, locale, source, and error behavior. For a simple image search tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete, though it could briefly note the return format (e.g., 'returns image metadata').

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal new meaning—mostly repeating defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches Bing images and returns normalized results. The verb 'Search' and resource 'Bing image results' are specific. Sibling tools like bing_search and bing_videos are for other media, making this tool distinct.

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 mentions locale defaults and error behavior (503), implying when the tool might fail, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like bing_search for general search or bing_videos. No direct exclusion or alternative tool names are provided.

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