bing_query_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no data freshness, no result limits or pagination, no indication of whether it is scoped to a verified property or requires specific auth. 'Bing' implies an external API dependency but no rate limits or failure behavior are mentioned.

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 sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of the information an agent needs.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description should be doing much more work. It omits return shape, ordering/limits, and the relationship to sibling tools, so the definition is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: 'siteUrl' is documented in Spanish as the exact URL of the verified property, but 'query' is undocumented. The description only loosely echoes 'una consulta' without adding format, matching behavior, or syntax beyond what the schema already implies, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('páginas') and the scope ('asociadas a una consulta en Bing'), so the agent can infer it returns pages matching a search query. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling 'bing_page_queries' (the inverse mapping), leaving the direction of the relationship ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bing_page_queries, bing_top_pages, or bing_backlink_pages. The agent must guess which sibling to call for a pages-by-query question.

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