Bing keyword historical statistics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds that statistics are 'historical' for a 'query, country, and language' scoping, which gives some context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't specify the date range of 'historical' data, how far back it extends, or what statistics exactly are returned (search volume, impressions, clicks, CPC?). The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence communicating the core purpose efficiently. No wasted words. However, it is minimal enough that some of the gaps in other dimensions stem from its brevity, though brevity alone isn't a flaw.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what data is returned. It doesn't specify what 'keyword statistics' include, the historical time range, pagination behavior, or the meaning of the return shape. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete for an agent to predict the tool's behavior reliably.

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 only 25%, meaning only 'limit' is documented in the schema. The description mentions query, country, and language but adds no formatting or syntax guidance (e.g., expected country code format like 'US' vs full name, language code like 'en' vs 'English'). With low coverage, the description should have compensated by clarifying parameter formats, and it largely doesn't.

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 'Get Bing's historical keyword statistics for a query, country, and language' - a clear verb+resource+scoping that conveys it retrieves historical stats filtered by query, country, and language. It distinguishes from siblings like bing_get_query_stats by focusing on keyword-level historical statistics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bing_get_related_keywords or bing_get_query_stats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. With ~50 sibling tools including bing_get_query_stats (which could overlap in what stats are returned) and bing_get_related_keywords, the description gives no direction on when a user should choose keyword stats over query stats or related keywords. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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