bing_feed_submit

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 usefully discloses that the operation does not claim indexation, but omits permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens on duplicate submissions.

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 wasted words; scope and the key caveat are both present immediately.

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 described. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves auth, failure modes, and parameter formats unaddressed for a write operation.

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% across two params. The phrase 'same-origin feed' implies feed_url must share the origin of site, which adds some meaning beyond the bare 'site'/'feed_url' property names, but neither parameter's format is explained.

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 (Submit) and resource (feed to Bing), and the qualifier 'same-origin' narrows scope meaningfully. It is distinguishable from siblings like bing_feed_remove and bing_url_submit, though it never names them directly.

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?

'Submit one same-origin feed' implies usage constraints (single feed, same-origin) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives such as bing_url_submit or submit_sitemap. The agent must infer the routing.

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