Bing query and page detail statistics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds 'dated' (implying time-series) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default limit semantics, or what happens when data exceeds the limit. Given the strong annotations coverage, a 3 is appropriate — the description adds modest value but doesn't detail return shape or ordering.

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, dense sentence conveys the complete purpose with zero waste. The description front-loads the verbs and resource clearly and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 moderate-complexity read tool with good annotations and a 4-parameter schema at 50% coverage, the description is adequate but sparse. It doesn't explain what 'position' means, how rows are ordered, default behavior when limit is exceeded, or the relationship between query and page_url. There's no output schema, so the description could reasonably note what data shape to expect, but this is not a critical gap given the annotations.

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 50%: site_url and limit have descriptions, but query and page_url lack them. The description mentions 'dated' metrics which clarifies what the returned rows represent but doesn't explain the relationship among site_url/query/page_url parameters or how they combine (e.g., whether page_url must belong to site_url). The limit parameter's semantic is already in schema, so the description adds minimal parameter value beyond the schema.

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 dated clicks, impressions, and position details for one query and one page' uses a specific verb (get) with a clear resource (dated performance metrics) scoped to one query and one page. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like bing_get_query_stats (query-level) and bing_get_page_stats (page-level) by specifying the query+page combination, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage for single query+page granularity, distinguishing from broad query or page stats siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus bing_get_query_stats, bing_get_page_stats, or the very similar bing_get_query_page_stats sibling, nor does it state when NOT to use it (e.g., for multi-query or multi-page needs).

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