Top Bing queries

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations—it doesn't describe time-range scoping, data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether results are aggregated. For a stats-gathering tool, returning results characteristics would be valuable context.

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 with zero filler words. It's appropriately brief for a state-retrieval tool. However, it could add a touch more utility value (e.g., noting the site_url must be a verified site) without becoming bloated.

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 straightforward read-only stats tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, this is largely adequate. The main gap is not explaining what distinguishes 'top queries' (time range default? ranking by clicks?) and not clarifying return value structure, though no output schema exists. It's functional but lean for an SEO data tool.

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 (site_url, limit) are documented in the schema with descriptions and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't distinguish which parameters are critical or explain the relationship between them.

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 ('Get') and resource ('clicks, impressions, and average positions for top search queries'). It indicates this returns query-level stats. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like bing_get_page_stats or bing_get_keyword_stats, though the title 'Top Bing queries' clarifies the query focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. With many similar bing_get_*_stats tools in the sibling list (page stats, keyword stats, crawl stats, rank/traffic stats), the lack of any when-to-use or comparison guidance leaves the agent to infer which stats tool fits a given need.

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