Bing crawl issues

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it doesn't contradict them. No mention of pagination/defaults or result format, though the limit param hints at it.

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 sentence, zero filler, perfectly concise. No wasted words while still conveying the core function clearly.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with full schema parameter coverage and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain result semantics (what kinds of crawl problems are returned), but for a simple retrieval tool with annotations and schema doing the heavy lifting, this is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both params (site_url, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which places it at the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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?

"Get crawling problems Bing has found for the site" is a clear verb+resource combination indicating the tool retrieves crawl issues for a given site. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like bing_get_crawl_stats and bing_get_sitemaps by referencing 'problems', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 usage (getting crawl issues for a site) but provides no when-to-use vs alternative tools, no prerequisites beyond the site_url param, and no exclusions. The schema references bing_list_sites for the site_url value, which is a helpful cross-reference, but the description itself carries no usage direction.

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