bing_crawl_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, date granularity, or whether the window is measured from today or from a fixed crawl date. For a stats tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'dated ... local window' is slightly ambiguous for such a short string.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent without enough information about the required 'site' argument or what the days window means. For a 2-parameter tool that is a meaningful omission.

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 neither 'site' nor 'days' is documented anywhere. The description hints that 'days' defines the window via 'local window' but does not clarify the format of 'site' (domain vs. URL vs. verified property) or whether days is inclusive. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (Bing crawl counts) and scopes it to a dated local window, which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like bing_query_stats or bing_page_stats. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the neighboring Bing crawl tools (bing_crawl_issues, bing_crawl_settings_get), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., site must be a verified Bing property), and no routing to alternatives such as bing_crawl_issues for problem diagnosis. The agent must guess the context in which crawl counts matter.

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