bing_keywords

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

No annotations; description explains the data is impressions-ranked and from Bing's topical index, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or error states.

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?

Brief, front-loaded purpose, followed by clear bullet-pointed parameters. No extraneous text.

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 parameter usage and data source adequately; output schema exists so return format is handled. Could add example usage or edge cases, but sufficient for a keyword 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all 5 parameters with defaults and formats (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD for dates), adding essential meaning.

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?

Description states it gets keywords Bing topically associates with example.com, impressions-ranked. Distinguishes itself from query stats, making purpose clear and 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?

Provides use case (authority and content gaps) and contrasts with query stats, but does not explicitly compare to sibling bing tools like bing_related_keywords or bing_top_queries.

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