bing_feed_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the returned 'detail' contains. It offers no behavioral context beyond the vague term 'oficial'.

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 with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity is not appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description would need to explain return values, usage context, or behavior, but it provides almost nothing. It is too thin to be complete for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both required parameters (siteUrl, feedUrl). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 a noun phrase ('Detalle oficial de un sitemap o índice de Bing') that restates the tool name's 'details' without a clear action verb. It identifies the resource domain (sitemap/Bing index) but does not distinguish the tool from siblings like bing_sitemaps or gsc_sitemap_details.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus bing_sitemaps, gsc_sitemap_details, or other sibling tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing suggestions.

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