Bing URL index information

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 the 'only fields returned by the official GetUrlInfo method' caveat, which is useful for setting expectations about scope. However, it doesn't describe what fields are actually returned, freshness expectations, or how to handle pages not in the index, though the lower bar due to strong annotations keeps this at a 3.

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 no waste. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could arguably add a touch more guidance without bloating, but as written it's appropriately sized and direct.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at what 'index details' means. With no output schema and several sibling tools that return different URL-related data, the description could better clarify what distinguishes these index details from traffic stats or fetched URL details. However, for a read-only single-page lookup with strong annotations and 100% param coverage, it's reasonably complete, though slightly under-specified given the absence of an output schema.

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%, with both parameters (url and site_url) already described in the schema. The description adds no param-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and both required params are self-explanatory.

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 tool gets Bing's index details for one page, with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Bing's index details for one page'), and scope ('for one page' and 'only fields returned by the official GetUrlInfo method'). It distinguishes from siblings like bing_get_url_traffic_info and bing_list_sites by focusing on index details vs traffic or site listing.

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 this is for a single page (contrasting with list/summary siblings), and the phrase 'only fields returned by the official method' gives some scope clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus bing_get_fetched_url_details, bing_get_url_traffic_info, or other URL-detail siblings, nor does it name alternatives. Context is implied but not explicit.

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