Bing inbound links for URL

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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by clarifying this returns a single 'official Bing result page' (implying one page of results, not all), and that site_url must be a verified exact match from bing_list_sites (visible in schema). No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the key action. It's appropriately short for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 listing tool with no output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't detail what the returned page contains beyond 'inbound links and anchor text' (e.g., format, pagination behavior, rate limits), and doesn't distinguish against bing_get_link_counts which might also relate to links. With no output schema, a bit more on the return format would help.

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% (all 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds context by noting it returns 'one official Bing result page' implying pagination via the page parameter, and the verified site_url requirement ties into the schema's 'Exact verified site URL returned by bing_list_sites' note. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the parameter documentation.

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), resource (Bing inbound links and anchor text), and scope (one official result page for a site URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bing_get_link_counts (which returns counts) and bing_get_url_info by specifying it returns inbound links with anchor text.

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 via 'official Bing result page' and 'inbound links and anchor text', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like bing_get_link_counts or bing_get_url_info. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative naming.

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