Submit URL to Bing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is conveyed by structured data. The description adds the quota-consumption behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose auth requirements, whether submissions are reversible, or what the response contains. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences convey the purpose, scope, and a key constraint (quota usage). Zero wasted words, fully 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 write/submission tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. The quota reference provides practical context. Could mention the distinction from the batch variant, but the combination of schema, annotations, and description is otherwise sufficient.

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 url and site_url having inline descriptions. The description adds the quota dimension but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships (e.g., that site_url must be the exact verified result from bing_list_sites, which the schema already states). Since coverage is full, the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Submit one page URL to Bing for crawling') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings. It also mentions the submission quota, which contextually differentiates it from the batch variant (bing_submit_url_batch) and indexnow submission tools.

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 states it submits a single URL and references the account quota, suggesting quota-conscious usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with bing_submit_url_batch, bing_submit_sitemap, or indexnow_submit_url, which are the obvious alternatives. The single-vs-batch distinction is implied via 'one page URL' but not made explicit.

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