bing_top_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the source refreshes weekly, implying data may be up to a week stale. It says nothing about result caps, ordering, or auth requirements for the verified property.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding and the resource statement front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 output schema, the description must convey what "top pages" returns and over what period, and it does not. An agent cannot tell the fields, ordering, or whether the weekly refresh means lagged data, which matters for a reporting tool with an undocumented limit parameter.

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 limit (1-1000, default 100) has no description anywhere. The tool description adds no meaning about either parameter, 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?

"Páginas principales de Bing" essentially restates the tool name (bing_top_pages) without a verb or stating what data is returned (clicks, impressions, ranking?). It does not differentiate from close siblings like bing_page_queries, bing_top_queries, or gsc_page_performance.

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 and no named alternatives among the many sibling page/query tools. The only extra information is a freshness note (weekly refresh), which is context rather than usage guidance.

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