bing_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. It hints that results are scoped to a 'rolling window,' but says nothing about required auth/permissions, how the window is computed, rate limits, or whether results are paginated — a large gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key scoping concept (rolling window) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omission rather than precision.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the meaning of 'site' and 'limit' and the tool's relationship to sibling Bing stats tools unexplained, so the agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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 the description must compensate for all three parameters. 'Rolling window' loosely maps to the 'days' parameter, but 'site' and 'limit' receive no explanation of format, required-ness, or effect on results.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Bing query performance'), so the agent knows this is a read/report tool. However, it gives no differentiation from the many nearby siblings such as bing_page_query_stats, bing_page_stats, and bing_rank_traffic_stats, leaving the agent to guess which Bing stats tool applies.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The mention of a 'rolling window' implies time-based reporting but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to the other Bing stats siblings.

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