bing_list_sites

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

No annotations are present, and the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond 'list all sites'. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, the description should offer more behavioral detail.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is essential, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool does, but could optionally add context about the output format or typical use cases. However, for a simple listing tool, it is nearly complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the guidelines, 0 parameters defaults to a baseline score of 4. No additional parameter information is necessary.

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 states the tool lists all Bing-verified sites for the API key owner. It uses a specific verb and resource. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bing_crawl_issues' or 'bing_page_stats', the name and description make the purpose distinct.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any preconditions or contexts where it is appropriate or not.

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