bing_portal_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the output is links rather than data, and that the underlying Bing tools have no public API. However, it says nothing about whether Bing Webmaster Tools authentication is required to follow those links, whether results vary per site, or what the response format looks like beyond 'links'.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads what the tool returns before the rationale. No filler, though the purpose and the API caveat are crammed into a single clause rather than separated.

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 one-enum-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers enough: what it returns, the two options, and why it exists instead of an API. The remaining gap (auth requirements for following the links) is minor.

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 0% for the single 'tool' parameter, but its two enum values (robots_tester, site_scan) are self-explanatory and the description names both corresponding tools. Beyond that mapping the description adds no new meaning about the parameter.

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?

States the resource precisely: it returns official links to Bing's Robots.txt Tester and Site Scan tools, which is distinct from the sibling bing_* data endpoints. No verb is used explicitly ('Enlaces oficiales a...'), but the outcome is unambiguous. It lacks any direct naming of sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The clause 'estas herramientas no tienen API pública' implicitly explains why this tool exists and when to reach for it (you cannot fetch this data programmatically), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing between robots_tester and site_scan. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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