get_site_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (List[SiteRole]), error behavior (raises BingWebmasterError), and explains the meaning of both parameters in the Args section. While it doesn't mention side effects (as it's a read operation, 'get' implies non-mutating), it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 a well-structured docstring with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is concise with no fluff, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple get tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return, and errors. It doesn't mention prerequisites or relationship to sibling tools, but that's not essential for a straightforward retrieval operation. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail the structure further.

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 does so by explaining each parameter: 'site_url: The URL of the site' and 'include_all_subdomains: Whether to include roles for all subdomains'. This adds meaning beyond the bare type/title in the schema, though it could be more specific about URL format or default behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all roles assigned for a specific site'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_site_roles and remove_site_role. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when retrieving roles before modifying them or checking existing permissions. It simply states what it does without any context or exclusions.

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