bing_sites_list

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read, and 'verified-state' hints at the payload's verification field, but there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or account-scoping behavior. Given no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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. 'verified-state summaries' is slightly jargon-heavy but the statement stays tight and purposeful.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and with no parameters the call surface is trivial. The description is nearly sufficient for such a simple enumeration tool, missing only usage/routing context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4.

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 (return) and resource (sites), with scope qualifiers 'verified-state summaries' and 'visible to the Bing account'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_site_details (single site) and list_properties (different provider), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the entry-point enumeration tool from the name alone; the description adds no routing logic relative to siblings such as list_properties or get_site_details.

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