get_query_page_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a List[QueryStats] and raises a BingWebmasterError, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'get'), any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the query yields no matches. For a read-only analytics tool, more context is needed to set agent expectations.

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 follows a clear docstring structure (Args, Returns, Raises). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids extraneous prose. While it could include more detail, the brevity is appropriate for a tool with only two parameters and a straightforward operation.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema (not shown in the definition), the description provides minimal context beyond the return type. It omits any mention of required permissions, rate limits, or the relationship to sibling tools like get_query_page_detail_stats. For a tool that returns 'detailed traffic statistics,' the description lacks enough context for an agent to know when this is the appropriate choice or what to expect in edge cases.

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 lists site_url and query but provides no additional meaning—no format constraints, examples, or clarification of what 'query' refers to (e.g., exact match vs. substring). The parameters are self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's property titles.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed traffic statistics for pages matching a specific query.' This specifies a verb (get), resource (traffic statistics for pages), and context (query-based filtering). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_query_stats and get_page_stats by focusing on page-level detail for a specific query, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast its scope.

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 use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_query_page_detail_stats, get_query_traffic_stats). The description does not state prerequisites, conditions for selection, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the crowded tool family.

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