bing_backlink_pages

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 and largely fails to. It discloses that results are paginated starting at 0 and sourced from Bing, but says nothing about permissions/verified-property requirements, result shape, ordering, or what the page limit implies for iteration.

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 short sentence front-loading the resource, source, and pagination constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance captured in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the definition is under-specified for an agent to call it confidently. It does not say what a result item contains or how the paginated list terminates.

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 coverage is 50%: siteUrl is documented in-schema ('URL exacta de la propiedad verificada') while page is not. The description adds a small amount of meaning by stating pagination starts from 0, matching the schema default, but gives no guidance on the 0-32767 bounds or how to advance pages.

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 concrete resource ('Páginas del sitio con enlaces entrantes') and the data source (Bing), so an agent understands it returns the list of pages that receive backlinks. It is distinguishable in spirit from the sibling bing_backlink_sources, but never names or contrasts that sibling 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bing_backlink_sources for the linking side of the data. The only usage hint is the pagination phrasing 'paginadas desde 0', which is implied rather than instructed.

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