get_crawl_issues

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

No annotations are provided, but the description documents the return type and a BingWebmasterError failure mode, and the 'get' name implies read-only. It doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, or whether the site must be verified, leaving the safety profile partly implicit.

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 compact and uses a clear Args/Returns/Raises structure with the main purpose front-loaded. The 'This helps identify...' sentence is useful but slightly overlapping with the first sentence, so it isn't flawless.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, argument, return, and error behavior. It is missing only richer site_url constraints and alternative-tool routing, which are minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, but the Args section only restates the schema ('site_url: The URL of the site') without adding format, verification requirements, or an example. The parameter is simple, but no extra meaning is added.

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 opening sentence states a precise action and resource: 'Get a list of URLs with crawl issues for a specific site.' The second sentence clarifies the value ('pages that Bing's crawler had trouble accessing or processing') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crawl_stats and get_crawl_settings.

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 gives a clear use case: use it to identify pages that Bing's crawler had trouble accessing or processing. It does not mention exclusions or name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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