bing_crawl_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what the listing contains, whether results are capped by limit or paginated, or the ordering of returned issues.

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 filler, so nothing is wasted—but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and it is not front-loaded with any actionable scope or constraint.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what is returned (issue types, per-URL detail, truncation behavior at the limit). It does none of that, leaving an agent guessing about the result shape.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter (default 100, max 1000) but says nothing about it. 'siteUrl' is documented in the schema, so the description adds zero parameter meaning.

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 ('Problemas de rastreo detectados por Bing') essentially restates the tool name bing_crawl_issues, only adding that the source is Bing. It does not specify what a 'crawl issue' includes (errors, blocked URLs, redirects) or how it differs from sibling diagnostics like bing_crawl_stats or gsc_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 guidance on when to use this versus bing_crawl_stats, seo_audit_site, or gsc_inspect_url, and no prerequisites (e.g., verified property) are stated beyond the schema field. Usage is only implied by the name.

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