bing_search

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

Discloses that results are fetched with a Chrome-impersonated client, returns 503 on challenge pages, and rejects site: operator queries with 400. Since no annotations exist, this description carries the full burden and does it well, though output structure is not fully detailed.

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?

Single paragraph is dense but no wasted words. Could benefit from bullet points for limitations, but front-loaded purpose is clear.

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?

Covers core functionality, optional components, defaults, error cases, and pagination. Lacks detail on output structure (no output schema) and rate limits, but is adequate for a search tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds context: default locale (us/en-us), page is 1-based, count clamped 1-50, and site: operator rejection. This provides extra guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Search Bing web results' and lists included components (organic results, context panel, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like bing_images, bing_news, and bing_videos by focusing on 'web results'. Also explicitly notes the site: operator limitation and suggests an alternative.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use for site: operator queries and recommends google_search for domain-restricted searches. Does not compare to other general search tools like google_search or brave_search for typical queries, which could be improved.

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