bing_sitemaps

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 the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that status information is returned alongside the list; it says nothing about scope, filtering, or result shape, which is acceptable but not enriching.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leans toward under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and a documented param, this is close to sufficient. It still leaves unclear what the returned sitemap entries contain (counts, index status, warnings) and how it differs from the GSC equivalent.

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 100% and the single required parameter siteUrl is documented as "URL exacta de la propiedad verificada." The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista los sitemaps enviados a Bing") and adds the returned attribute ("su estado"). Naming Bing implicitly separates it from the sibling gsc_sitemaps, though the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name: it is the Bing counterpart to gsc_sitemaps, but the description never says when to pick this over that sibling or what prerequisites apply beyond the schema's "propiedad verificada".

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