bing_top_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuinely new behavior, the weekly data refresh cadence, but says nothing about ordering, row semantics, or what happens when limit exceeds available data.

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 and the resource stated first, so structure is fine. But the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — the second sentence is the only substantive content and the rest is a bare label.

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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the ranking basis (clicks? impressions? average position?), the time window, and how it differs from bing_page_queries/bing_query_pages. None of that is present, leaving the tool under-specified for correct selection and 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 has a description, but limit has only a default and min/max bounds with no stated meaning. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, not even that limit caps the number of returned queries, 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?

"Consultas principales de Bing" identifies the resource (top search queries) but only implies the verb (list/retrieve) and gives no notion of what makes a query "top" or over what period. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as bing_page_queries or bing_query_pages, which also return query data.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the nearby alternatives (bing_top_pages, bing_page_queries, bing_query_pages). The only contextual hint is the weekly refresh cadence, which does not tell an agent when this tool is the right pick.

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