Bing URL submission quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description aligns with these annotations and adds minimal context (that it returns quota/remaining count before submission). There are no rate limit or auth details disclosed, but for a read-only quota check, the annotations carry the safety burden adequately.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('Check how many URL submissions remain') and adds a usage qualifier. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 single-parameter read-only quota check tool with full schema coverage and strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description and structured fields together provide sufficient completeness. It connects to related sibling tools (bing_list_sites for source, bing_submit_* for the follow-on action) implicitly through naming. An output schema would've added detail on what the quota response contains, but its absence isn't a major gap for this simple 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%, and the single parameter (site_url) is well-documented in the schema as 'Exact verified site URL returned by bing_list_sites.' This cross-reference to bing_list_sites adds valuable semantics beyond the raw schema, telling the agent where to source the valid value. With one fully-documented parameter, the description doesn't need to add more, though it doesn't restate the parameter in prose.

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 clear purpose: 'Check how many URL submissions remain before submitting URLs.' This uses a specific verb+resource and the 'before submitting URLs' phrase provides usage context. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submission tools (bing_submit_url, bing_submit_url_batch) by focusing on quota checking rather than actual submission, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 to use this 'before submitting URLs,' which provides clear timing context for when to invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling alternatives, the relationship to the submission tools is clear from the description phrasing. The context is adequate for an agent to know this is a pre-flight check tool.

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