get_keyword_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type (List[KeywordStats]) and a specific error condition (BingWebmasterError), which is useful. However, it does not discuss side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens when no statistics exist.

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 well-organized with clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. The summary line is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler. Slight redundancy exists between the summary and Returns line, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 gives the necessary parameters, examples, return type, and error behavior, which is sufficient for basic invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Still, given a large set of similar statistics-gathering sibling tools, the absence of contextual orientation makes it incomplete in a broader operational setting.

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. It defines each parameter briefly and gives concrete examples for country ('gb') and language ('en-GB'), which adds practical value beyond the bare schema. It could still specify valid values or constraints, but it covers all three parameters meaningfully.

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 line states a specific action and resource: 'Retrieve keyword statistics for a specific query.' This is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_query_stats or get_keyword_stats, leaving the differential purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, so an agent must infer 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.