crawl_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (statistics plus issues grouped by type), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, whether it is Bing-specific only, authentication/permission needs, rate limits, or how the days window affects results.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical field list could be tightened or traded for the missing usage/parameter guidance.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned content well enough to call the tool. It is still incomplete on the meaning of days/site_url and on when this is the right tool relative to its many siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters, and it does not. It never explains that site_url selects the property or that days scopes the reporting window (default 30), leaving the meaning of both inputs entirely to the bare schema titles.

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?

The description clearly names the resource (Bing crawl statistics and crawl issues) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (pages crawled, errors, in index, status codes, issue grouping), which lets an agent distinguish it from traffic_trend or search_performance. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus traffic_trend, search_performance, or url_info, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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