bing_crawl_issues

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

The description adds value by noting that each entry includes decoded issue labels, which goes beyond a generic 'get list' phrasing. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose any potential behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or authorization requirements. For a simple read tool, this is adequate.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides concrete examples of returned data. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately focuses on the tool's primary function and output structure. With no parameters and no annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context for a simple list retrieval 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?

There are no parameters, so the description naturally requires no parameter explanations. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not hinder usability.

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 retrieves a list of URLs with crawl issues from Bing, specifying the nature of the data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bing_crawl_stats, which likely provides aggregate statistics rather than individual issue details.

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 implies usage for technical SEO fixes, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bing_crawl_stats for high-level overviews. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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