Bing Search

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing that requests are proxied through the Decodo Web Scraping API (implying external dependency/latency) and that the response is a parsed page rather than raw HTML. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or pagination behavior for pageFrom, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences: purpose/return first, usage and sibling differentiation second, then a docs link. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (parsed JSON results page), and the schema fully documents inputs. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination limits or how many results a page contains, which an agent may want when handling pageFrom.

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 100% and all seven parameters, including the deviceType enum, are documented in-schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (Bing, via the Decodo `bing_search` target) and states the return shape ('parsed results page as JSON'). It also distinguishes the tool from the Google sibling by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit selection condition: use when Bing results are needed specifically, or to compare with Google. That is clear positive guidance and implicitly routes Google-only needs to google_search, though there is no explicit 'do not use when' clause.

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