bing_url_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool provides index status and crawl info, but does not clarify if it is read-only, whether it triggers API calls, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is not found. Minimal transparency for a mutation-free information retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), the description lacks context about how it fits among 20+ sibling tools. An agent would not know when to choose this over similar tools like bing_page_stats or gsc_inspect_url. The output schema exists but does not mitigate the lack of usage context.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters (site_url, url), and the description adds no semantic information about them. It does not explain expected format (e.g., full URL vs domain), relationships between parameters, or valid values. The description fails to compensate for the schema's deficiency.

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 provides 'Index status + crawl info for a single URL on Bing.' This specifies the verb (get/report), the resource (URL on Bing), and the scope (single URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bing_page_stats (page-level metrics) or bing_crawl_issues (crawl issues).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to prefer this over bing_page_stats or bing_crawl_issues, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. The description is purely functional.

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