get_crawl_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape (List[CrawlStats]) and the possible error (BingWebmasterError), which is useful. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or how the claimed date range is controlled.

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 short and well organized into Args, Returns, and Raises, with the main action in the first sentence. It contains one redundant line (the Args entry) but no filler or repetition elsewhere.

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?

Despite the low complexity, the description is incomplete: it claims a date range but provides no parameter or mechanism for it, and it gives no guidance about what happens if no date range is specified. For one required parameter the tool is callable, but the mismatch between description and schema makes it less safe for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the description must add meaning. It only repeats the parameter name as 'The URL of the site', which adds no information beyond the property name site_url. There is no format, example, or clarification of the date-range behavior, leaving the only parameter semantically hollow.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names a concrete resource ('crawl statistics') scoped to a site. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_crawl_settings and get_crawl_issues. However, the phrase 'within a date range' is not reflected in the input schema, introducing ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_crawl_settings, get_crawl_issues, or get_rank_and_traffic_stats, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions. The only usage signal is the implicit one from the tool's name and first sentence.

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