bing_page_query_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness/lag, or behavior when no query data exists for the page. The only behavioral signal is the single-page scope, which is minimal for an external API call.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is structurally clean. The terseness, however, is under-specification rather than discipline, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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. But with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage or prerequisite context, the definition is too thin for a 4-parameter external-API tool whose siblings overlap heavily.

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 4 parameters. The description only loosely implies the page parameter ("one requested page") and site via "Bing"; days and limit (both with defaults of 30 and 1000) are undocumented in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent guessing at their meaning.

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 states a verb ("Return") and a resource (Bing query performance) scoped to "one requested page," which is more than a restatement of the name. However, "query performance" is left undefined (impressions? clicks? CTR? position?), and it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like bing_page_stats or bing_query_stats.

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 prerequisites (e.g., the site must be verified in Bing Webmaster Tools), and no named alternative. The phrase "one requested page" implies a single-page scope but never tells the agent when to prefer bing_query_stats or bing_page_stats instead.

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