bing_feeds_list

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. It hints at field selection ('observed, non-indexation fields') but never defines what that excludes or why, and gives no auth, rate-limit, or pagination context.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is efficient, but the opaque 'observed, non-indexation fields' clause consumes the only content slot without conveying actionable meaning.

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. Still, for a 1-param tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin to guide 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?

The single required 'site' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It adds no meaning about what 'site' should contain or how it is identified.

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 clear verb+resource ('Return Bing feeds'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, the qualifier 'only the observed, non-indexation fields' is unexplained jargon and does not distinguish it from the sibling bing_feed_details, leaving the actual scope ambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus the closely related bing_feed_details, bing_feed_submit, or bing_feed_remove. The agent must infer that this is the listing counterpart purely from the name.

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