bing_top_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — a weekly refresh cadence — which implies read-only data, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limits, or whether the site must be verified. That is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no filler, so nothing is wasteful. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is simply not enough content to be front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description should explain what is returned, how results are ordered, and the role of limit. It omits all of that and is also in a different language from the schema and sibling tools, adding friction for selection.

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 as the verified property URL, but the limit parameter (default 100, max 1000) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, 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" names the resource and implies a ranked list of top pages, but supplies no verb and no scope qualifiers (time window, ranking metric, per-site vs. global). Among siblings like bing_page_queries and bing_top_queries, an agent cannot tell from the description alone which resource this returns or how it differs.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many Bing/GSC siblings. The only extra information, that the source refreshes weekly, is a data-freshness note 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.