Bing crawl statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds a minor temporal scoping note ('typically covering recent months') but doesn't explain pagination semantics, what happens if the site has no crawl data, or the interpretation of the returned statistics. With thorough annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, no filler. It's efficiently written and front-loaded with the core function, though the single sentence is somewhat thin rather than genuinely economical—there was room to add useful context without bloat.

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, idempotent list-type tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, this is roughly adequate. However, given the large sibling set of Bing/SEO tools, the description would benefit from clarifying what specific crawl data it exposes versus crawl issues/sitemaps/fetched URLs, and what the 'rows' of output represent.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (site_url and limit) are described in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond schema—it doesn't clarify what 'limit' caps (rows of what exactly?) beyond what schema says. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full documentation burden.

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 states the tool gets Bing crawl statistics for a site over recent months, but it's vague about what 'crawl statistics' actually means (pages crawled, crawl frequency, bingbot activity?). It names a resource (Bing crawl stats) and a verb (get) but doesn't differentiate what data it returns compared to sibling tools like bing_get_page_stats, bing_get_fetched_url_details, or bing_get_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 on when to use this tool vs. alternative Bing crawler-related tools (crawl issues, fetched URLs, sitemaps). The description implies a time-bound query ('typically covering recent months') but gives no exclusions or comparisons. The site_url being 'exact verified URL returned by bing_list_sites' hints at a prerequisite but that is in the schema, not the description.

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