get_active_page_preview_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reports the return type (List[PagePreview]) and error behavior (Raises BingWebmasterError). It also indicates read-only behavior by describing a 'get' operation. This is adequate transparency for a simple getter, though it omits details like authentication or rate limits.

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 follows a clear structured format with Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is concise and the opening sentence front-loads the main purpose. Minimal redundancy, though the parameter explanation is slightly thin.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, parameter, return type, and error condition. It could benefit from a brief note on what 'active' means or a dependency on site verification, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. However, it only restates the parameter name and adds a generic phrase 'The URL of the site,' which barely adds value over the schema (which already states the property is a required string). No format, validation, or examples are provided, leaving the parameter semantics essentially undocumented.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('active page preview blocks'), and the scope ('for a site'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_page_preview_block and remove_page_preview_block by emphasizing retrieval of active blocks, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deep_link_blocks. While the name and summary imply it is for retrieving active page preview blocks, there is no guidance on exclusions or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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