bing_url_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Return' and scopes the output to 'one Bing page,' which hints at pagination behavior, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core operation without redundant or filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameters and usage. It covers the basic purpose but leaves the required 'site' parameter and any usage context unexplained, making it only partially complete for the tool's complexity.

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. It clarifies that 'url' is the target URL and that 'page' implies pagination ('one Bing page'), but it completely omits any explanation of the required 'site' parameter, which is essential for invocation. Coverage is partial and insufficient.

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 page of backlinks for the requested target URL'), making the tool's function clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like bing_link_counts. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the resource and scope are precise enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bing_link_counts or bing_url_info. It only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any exclusions or prerequisites.

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