Bing related keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds that it's limited to what 'Bing's API supports,' which implies some API constraints but doesn't detail pagination, rate limits, or whether results vary over time. With strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loads the core function. It efficiently captures the tool's essence without filler. Could arguably mention parameter formats, but for length it's appropriately concise.

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?

This is a reasonably simple filtered-lookup read tool with strong annotations covering the safety profile. However, with 5 of 6 parameters undocumented in the schema (17% coverage), and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance on expected value formats (country, language codes, date conventions) and result semantics to be fully complete.

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 only 17% — the schema provides no descriptions for query, country, language, start_date, or end_date beyond format constraints. The description name-drops all five parameters but adds no semantics about formats (e.g., is 'country' a code like 'US' or a name?), date range constraints (max span?), or expected value formats. It lists the parameters but doesn't explain how to populate them correctly.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get related-keyword impressions') with explicit scoping to query, country, language, and date range. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like bing_get_keyword_stats, but the 'related-keyword' focus is reasonably clear given the name and title already convey the purpose.

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 says it gets impressions 'supported by Bing's API' which implies API limitations but doesn't give explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that siblings like bing_get_keyword_stats or bing_get_query_stats might be more appropriate for other keyword analysis needs. No exclusions or alternatives named.

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