bing_crawl_issues

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 does not disclose the return shape, whether results are paginated, how 'limit' bounds output, or what permission/verified-property requirements exist for a mutation-free but privileged data pull.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, return description, or usage condition to earn the space saved.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits what a 'crawl issue' record contains, ordering, and pagination behavior, all of which the agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 50% (siteUrl documented, limit undocumented). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the missing 'limit' semantics such as default 100 / max 1000 and what a limit of 1 returns.

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 names a specific resource (crawl issues) and source (Bing), so the agent can tell it retrieves Bing-detected crawl errors. However it uses no verb and gives no differentiation from the very similar sibling 'bing_crawl_stats', leaving the agent to guess which of the two is wanted.

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 (e.g. that the site must be a verified property), and no mention of alternatives such as bing_crawl_stats or bing_url_info. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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