bing_submit_url

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits; it mentions the daily quota but does not explain implications of exceeding it, auth requirements, or what 'fast crawling' entails. It provides minimal transparency beyond the quota.

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, fitting one sentence and a parenthetical. It is well-front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more structure or detail without losing brevity.

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 submission tool with an output schema, the description covers basic usage but lacks completeness regarding error states, authentication, or post-submission behavior. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 two parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of 'site_url' or 'url' beyond their names. This forces reliance on inference, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action ('Submit') and the resource ('URL for fast crawling'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings through the action of submitting to Bing, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 mentions a daily quota, providing some context for usage, but does not guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives like indexnow_submit_url. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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