bing_crawl_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere and the description needed to add something else. It adds nothing: no time-range behavior, no aggregation semantics, no note on what the stats cover or whether results are fresh. Purely a label.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — but the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. There is nothing to trim; the problem is that almost nothing is there.

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 carries the full burden of explaining what these statistics contain (crawl requests, errors, latency, date windows). Given a crowded sibling set with an adjacent tool (bing_crawl_issues), the definition is not complete enough for reliable selection.

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?

Only one parameter (siteUrl) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema alone explains that the exact URL of a verified property is required. The description adds no additional meaning, but the high coverage baseline makes 3 appropriate.

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 is essentially the tool name rendered in Spanish: 'estadísticas de rastreo de Bing' restates 'bing_crawl_stats' without adding a verb, scope, or data shape. It does confirm the domain (Bing crawl data) but an agent gets no more signal than the name alone already provides, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like bing_crawl_issues.

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 prerequisite (beyond the required verified property URL), and no mention of when to prefer bing_crawl_issues or gsc_search_performance instead. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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