get_crawl_settings

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

With no annotations, the description makes the read-only nature clear via 'Retrieve' and 'current crawl settings,' and it discloses that failures surface as BingWebmasterError. It stops short of explaining side effects, ownership/prerequisite checks, or response details, but those are less critical for a simple getter.

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 main action appears in the first sentence with no filler. The Args/Returns/Raises sections are compact and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 getter, the description covers purpose, the parameter, the return type, and a failure mode, which is sufficient for most invocation scenarios. It is only missing optional context like site verification requirements or how this relates to save_crawl_settings.

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 Args section defines site_url as 'the URL of the site,' which clarifies the single parameter despite the schema having no descriptions. It still largely paraphrases the parameter name and adds no format, scope, or validation details.

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 opens with 'Retrieve crawl settings for a specific site,' providing a clear verb, object, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the read/write sibling save_crawl_settings by the explicit retrieval framing, though it does not directly name that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related settings tools or what conditions must be true before calling it. The name and verb imply a read operation, but no context, prerequisites, or typical workflow is offered.

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