bing_query_stats

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

The description reveals that results are limited to the last 6 months and requires the site_url to match Bing's verified format. However, with no annotations provided, it does not address read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the critical parameter requirement. Every part is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter constraint. It lacks guidance on data representativeness (e.g., is it aggregated daily?) but is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no description for site_url (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that site_url must match Bing's verified format with an example. No other parameters exist, so this adds necessary context beyond the schema.

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 retrieves 'Last-6-months query stats from Bing Webmaster' including clicks, impressions, and position. It distinguishes from siblings like bing_page_stats (page-level) and bing_crawl_issues (issues) by specifying the kind of data and time range.

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 implies the tool is for historical query performance data over the last 6 months, but does not explicitly mention when to use it compared to alternatives such as bing_page_stats for page-level metrics or gsc_performance for Google. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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