Bing inbound link counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the notion of 'official Bing result page' and the pagination dimension, but doesn't disclose what the result page contains beyond 'site URLs and their inbound-link counts,' nor whether results are ordered or truncated. With strong annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds modest value.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately brief for a read-only data-fetch tool. Slightly opaque terminology ('official Bing result page') could be clarified, but overall the description is well-sized.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is close to adequate. However, given the crowded sibling space (many bing_get_* tools), it would benefit from clarifying how its results (inbound link counts per site) differ from bing_get_url_links or bing_get_page_stats, and what pagination via the 'page' parameter implies for the returned data set. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the result structure would improve completeness.

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 (page, site_url) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds the 'official Bing result page' framing and links site_url to bing_list_sites output (via schema), but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource: 'Get one official Bing result page of site URLs and their inbound-link counts.' It clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving a single page of link-count data. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like bing_get_url_links or bing_get_page_stats, which are close in domain; the scope ('official Bing result page') is stated but sibling differentiation is absent.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to prefer this over bing_get_url_links, bing_get_page_stats, or other link-related siblings. The site_url parameter note (in schema) references bing_list_sites, but the description itself offers no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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