bing_keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires an external API key from Bing Webmaster Tools and emphasizes 'real' impressions, which distinguishes observed data from estimates. This is meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the one critical prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only lookup with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description includes the main missing runtime context: the API key requirement and the real-data nature of the result. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but these are not essential for basic invocation given the existing structured metadata.

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 75%, with days, country, and language already documented. The description reinforces 'one keyword' and 'last N days', which maps to keyword and days, but does not add new semantic detail for the parameters. This is adequate given the schema's existing descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the metric ('Real Bing search impressions'), the scope ('one keyword'), and the time window ('last N days'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like bing_keyword_history or estimate_volumes.

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 a prerequisite ('Needs FREE_SEO_BING_API_KEY') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as estimate_volumes, bing_related_keywords, or bing_keyword_history. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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