bing_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses normalized JSON output, omission of empty blocks, locale defaults, Chrome-impersonated fetching, 503 on challenge/unusable/unrelated responses, and 400 for site: queries. This gives the agent an accurate picture of success and failure modes.

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 information-dense with no fluff. Every sentence earns its place: result contents, optional-block behavior, defaults, error semantics, and an alternative for unsupported queries. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds detail only where needed.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: return types and pagination, filter behavior, error/status codes, unsupported operators, and locale handling. It is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema by explicitly stating country/lang defaults and explaining that site: queries in q are rejected. It reinforces pagination and count behavior without adding syntax, but still provides useful operational detail.

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 opens with 'Search Bing web results' — a specific verb plus resource — and enumerates the return types (organic results, context panel, related queries, PAA, news, video, pagination). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bing_news or bing_videos and from google_search.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool: queries with the site: operator are unsupported and rejected with 400. It also names an explicit alternative: 'Use the Google search endpoint (/api/v1/google/search) for domain-restricted searches.' This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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