bing_feed_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Return,' implying a read. It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, whether data is live or cached, pagination behavior, or any safety profile for a tool requiring site and feed_url.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the vague wording limits usefulness rather than conciseness.

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. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description omits the role of the required site/feed_url inputs and any usage context, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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% for two required parameters, and the description never mentions site or feed_url. It adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to supply.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'Bing feed-detail row,' but the phrase 'observed list response' is opaque and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling bing_feeds_list or explain what the detail rows contain. An agent gets only a partial sense of purpose without any mention of site or feed_url.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'observed list response' faintly implies this follows a list call, but the usage context remains implicit and unstated.

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