get_connected_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a return type (List[ConnectedSite]) and the error condition (BingWebmasterError), and the verb 'Get' implies a read operation. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether site ownership/verification is required, or what 'connected pages' means in this context.

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 concise and uses a clear Args/Returns/Raises structure. It leads with the primary purpose and adds the error condition, but the Args section is slightly redundant with 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?

The description covers the input, return type, and error behavior, which is decent for a single-parameter getter. However, it never explains what 'connected sites/pages' means, whether the site must be verified/authorized, or how this differs from related lookup tools like get_sites or get_fetched_urls.

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?

The schema parameter has no description (coverage 0%), and the description merely repeats 'The URL of the site,' which is little more than the parameter name. It adds no detail about expected URL format, verification requirements, or how the site_url relates to the connected pages returned.

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 clear verb+resource construction: 'Get a list of pages connected to the site.' This is distinct from sibling tools like get_sites, get_page_stats, and get_fetched_urls. The only minor ambiguity is that Returns is typed as List[ConnectedSite] while the description talks about 'pages,' which could confuse an agent about the exact return shape.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_page_stats, get_fetched_urls, or get_site_roles. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or distinctions from siblings, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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