bing_url_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, but it is short. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: results are limited to observed fields and make no indexation claims, which usefully signals the tool's epistemic limits. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or data freshness, and the presence of an output schema offloads return-value disclosure.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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?

For a two-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and many closely related Bing siblings, the description is too thin. The output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but it still lacks parameter meaning, usage routing, and any operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both required parameters (site, url) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what "site" is (hostname, property, Bing site ID?) or how it differs from "url", leaving a real gap the description was expected to fill.

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?

"Return only fields observed from Bing URL info" largely restates the tool name (bing_url_info) rather than defining a distinct capability. The only added information is a negative caveat ("without indexation claims"), which is a scope limitation, not a purpose statement. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like bing_url_traffic, bing_url_links, or inspect_url.

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, prerequisites, or named alternatives are provided. The phrase "without indexation claims" faintly implies a use case (raw observed data rather than an indexing verdict), but the agent is left to infer this and cannot tell when to pick this over the many other Bing/URL inspection tools.

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