Queries for a Bing page

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as how results are ordered, whether pagination is needed, or what the limit parameter does. With strong annotations, the bar is lower, and the description contributes marginal but non-zero 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?

A single concise sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it could add a small bit of differentiating context without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what results look like, but it doesn't describe the return format. For a read-only query-stats tool with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, this is a modest gap. It's a simple enough tool that this functionality is largely adequate.

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 all three parameters (site_url, page_url, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description itself doesn't add semantic depth beyond the schema, such as explaining that site_url must come from bing_list_sites or how limit interacts with result volume. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get search-query statistics for one specific page' has a specific verb (get), resource (search-query statistics), and scope (one specific page). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bing_get_query_stats (which likely covers all pages) and bing_get_page_stats (which likely gives page stats not query-specific). The 'one specific page' language sharpens the differentiation.

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 the tool takes a single page and returns query stats, but doesn't explicitly contrast with bing_get_query_page_stats (which may return query-page combos) or bing_get_page_stats. It doesn't state when to use this over the many sibling query/page tools. Clear context but no exclusions or explicit alternates named.

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