Bing sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The description adds the fact that it reports on sitemap AND feed status, which is a worthwhile behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, response format, or latency characteristics.

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, clear sentence that states purpose without padding. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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 simple read-only reporting tool with 2 well-documented parameters, full annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add context about what a 'feed' is or the distinction between sitemap and feed results, but given the strong schema and annotation coverage, this is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both parameters fully documented (site_url as 'exact verified site URL returned by bing_list_sites' and limit with min/max/default). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Get submitted sitemap and feed status') and clearly identifies what data it returns. While it distinguishes from bing_submit_sitemap (which submits), it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself among the many bing_get_* reporting siblings, all of which follow the same 'get status from Bing Webmaster' pattern.

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 a read-only query context but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The schema's site_url parameter description references bing_list_sites as a prerequisite dependency, which offers indirect usage clues, but the description itself doesn't mention that dependency or exclude alternatives.

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