search_bing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search Bing' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'progress tracking' entails (e.g., real-time updates, callback mechanisms). The description is too vague about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search Bing') and adds a useful modifier ('with progress tracking'). Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it fails to clarify parameter purposes or behavioral details adequately. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'query' implicitly but doesn't explain the 'session_id' parameter at all. The phrase 'with progress tracking' might relate to 'session_id', but this connection isn't made explicit, leaving both parameters poorly explained beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Bing', specifying the action and target. It adds 'with progress tracking' which provides additional context about the tool's functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from other search-related tools that might exist in the sibling list, though none are directly search tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other tools in the sibling list (which are primarily browser automation tools, not search engines). The phrase 'with progress tracking' hints at a specific use case but doesn't clarify when this is preferred over a simpler search.

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