Top Bing pages

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 safety profile is well established. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'top' means, whether results are sorted, pagination behavior, or time-window semantics. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description is non-contradictory but adds little.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that lists what data is returned. It is front-loaded and incurs zero waste. While extremely brief, it conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. One could argue for a 5, but the lack of any usage distinction makes it slightly less complete as a standalone text.

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 page-stats retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what data will be returned (clicks, impressions, avg position) but is ambiguous about 'top pages' criteria and leaves the agent guessing about ordering and time windows. Given the large sibling set with similar page/query stats tools, more differentiation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (site_url and limit) are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema. site_url's requirement that it be an 'exact verified site URL returned by bing_list_sites' is well documented in the schema itself. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full load.

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 clearly states the verb + resource: 'Get clicks, impressions, and average positions for top pages.' It communicates what data is retrieved (per-page metrics) and is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like bing_get_keyword_stats and bing_get_crawl_stats. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools like bing_get_query_page_stats or bing_get_url_traffic_info, which could be easily confused for similar page-level metrics.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The description implies it reports top performing pages, but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this vs bing_get_page_query_stats, bing_get_url_traffic_info, or bing_get_rank_and_traffic_stats. No alternative tools are named, and no context about 'top' definition (recency, date range) is provided.

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