get_bing_clicks_and_impressions

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 real trait beyond the schema — Bing's ingestion lag for new sites — and implicitly confirms a read operation via the get_ name, but it omits permissions/auth needs, any rate-limit behavior, and the return shape.

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, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded before the latency caveat. It is efficient, though the first sentence is generic enough that the key metric names are absent.

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 three-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should convey what comes back and how it is scoped. It conveys the date-range semantics and a latency note but says nothing about the returned metric set, leaving the agent to infer return values from the name.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but "rango inclusivo" adds a semantic the schema does not: the schema only says "Fecha YYYY-MM-DD" for startDate/endDate, leaving inclusivity ambiguous, whereas the description pins down that both bounds are included.

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?

"Métricas diarias de Bing" states a resource and cadence, and "rango inclusivo" scopes the query, but the description never names the metrics (clicks and impressions) that the tool actually returns — that only appears in the tool name. It does not distinguish this daily-metrics tool from siblings like bing_top_queries or bing_top_pages, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 versus the many bing_* alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g. properties must be verified before calling). The only guidance — that Bing may be slow to have data for new sites — is a data-freshness caveat, not usage routing.

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