get_url_submission_quota

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get information'), and it mentions an error type ('Raises: BingWebmasterError') which adds some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not describe any side effects, rate limits, or failure conditions beyond the generic error. This is minimal but provides basic clarity.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns/Raises structure. Every section is relevant and there is no fluff. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic return and error. However, it does not mention when to use this quota tool versus the sibling 'get_content_submission_quota', and it does not explain the meaning of the returned quota in context. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for the parameter 'site_url'. The description only states 'The URL of the site', which is essentially a restatement of the parameter name and lacks details such as required format (e.g., protocol, domain), validation rules, or examples. For a single parameter with no schema guidance, this is insufficient.

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 action: 'Get information about URL submission quota and usage.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'URL submission quota' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from broader site management tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_content_submission_quota', which is a similar quota-retrieval tool for content, so a small deduction.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or tell the agent when to pick this over 'get_content_submission_quota' or other quota-related tools. It merely states the function, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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