bing_query_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds nothing further — no note on data freshness, whether the siteUrl must be a verified property, or how results are bounded. It does not contradict the annotations, but it earns no credit above the annotation baseline.

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 no filler, so it is certainly concise. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being front-loaded with useful information; there is no structure to speak of.

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-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what a returned 'page' is and how results relate to the query. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the semantic gap around the query parameter and the sibling ambiguity leaves the definition incomplete.

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 only 50%: siteUrl is documented in the schema but query is a bare string. The description gestures at 'una consulta' but does not explain whether query is a keyword, a URL, or a Bing query syntax expression, and it adds nothing about the siteUrl scoping requirement that would 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?

The Spanish phrase 'Páginas asociadas a una consulta en Bing' identifies the resource (pages) and its link to a query, but uses no action verb and never says whether these are ranking pages, crawled pages, or indexed pages. It also fails to distinguish itself from the near-mirror sibling bing_page_queries, which appears to be the inverse relationship.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With bing_page_queries and bing_top_pages sitting right next to it in the sibling list, the agent is left to guess which of the three answers a 'which pages relate to this query' question.

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