get_url_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return type (UrlInfo) and a failure mode (BingWebmasterError), and the verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation. However, it provides no context about permissions, rate limits, or what specific aspects of the URL are covered.

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 well-structured with clear Args/Returns/Raises sections. Every section adds necessary information, and there is no redundant or filler content. The format makes the tool easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to restate those. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives and does not clarify the difference between 'detailed information' and the more specific sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for agents in a large toolset.

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 provides brief glosses for both parameters, distinguishing site_url from url, but lacks format details, examples, or clarification of how the two parameters interact. This is minimal but sufficient for basic invocation.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve detailed information') applied to a specific resource ('a specific URL'). This distinguishes it from broader site-level tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings like get_url_traffic_info or get_children_url_info.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does and its parameters, leaving an agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and sibling list.

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