Bing pages for query

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 fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any quirks about how stats are computed. With strong annotation coverage, the bar is low, and the description doesn't contradict or meaningfully extend the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Get') and resource ('Bing traffic statistics for pages'). No redundant qualifiers or fluff.

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 stats retrieval tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and a moderately documented schema, the description is adequate. No output schema exists, so the description could arguably mention the shape of returned stats, and the query param lacks description. The tool is relatively simple with only 2 required params, so the minimal description is mostly sufficient, though it could clarify the distinction from the similarly-named bing_get_query_page_detail_stats sibling.

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 67% - site_url and limit have descriptions, but query does not. The description adds the notion that stats are 'for pages associated with one search query,' which clarifies what query means contextually. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'traffic statistics' includes as fields, or the relationship between site_url and query. With 67% coverage, schema does most of the work, and the description contributes modest context but doesn't fully fill the gap for the undocumented query parameter.

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 Bing traffic statistics for pages associated with one search query' clearly states the action (get stats) and the resource (Bing pages associated with a query). It distinguishes from siblings like bing_get_page_stats (single page) and bing_get_query_stats (query-level stats) by clarifying it returns pages associated with a single query. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bing_get_query_page_detail_stats, which appears closely related.

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 context: it's for getting per-page stats for a single query. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like bing_get_query_stats or bing_get_query_page_detail_stats. The site_url parameter description in the schema ('Exact verified site URL returned by bing_list_sites') provides some prerequisite guidance, but the overall when-vs-alternatives guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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