bing_page_queries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing beyond the subject matter: no time window, no data-source scope, no auth/permission requirements, no note on whether results are paginated or sampled. For an analytics query tool this is a substantial gap.

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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity costs information an agent needs rather than trimming redundancy.

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 two-required-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the site/page relationship and the meaning of the returned result set. It leaves both unaddressed.

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 both siteUrl and pageUrl are already documented in the schema (verified property URL, full page URL). The description adds no format or usage nuance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (queries) and its relationship to a page in Bing, which is more specific than a tautology, but the verb is absent and the word 'associadas' is ambiguous — it could mean queries that drove clicks, queries the page ranks for, or queries containing the page. Nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings like bing_top_queries or bing_query_pages.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling bing_query_pages appears to be the inverse mapping (pages for a query), yet the description never states the direction or the conditions that select this tool, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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