submit_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It does disclose the limited-quota behavior and documents a Raises case for BingWebmasterError. However, it does not explain whether submission is asynchronous, whether duplicate/resubmission is allowed, or what a successful submission implies beyond the return value covered by the output schema.

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 logically ordered: purpose, quota prerequisite, args, and exceptions. The purpose sentence is front-loaded and effective. Minor grammar issues like 'limited number of url' and 'how much urls' slightly reduce polish but do not hurt clarity.

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 two-parameter submission tool, the description covers the essential action, the quota check, parameter roles, and the error path. The output schema presumably documents the return value, so that is not a gap. It could be more complete by naming the bulk alternative explicitly or giving URL examples, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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?

The schema provides zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The Args section gives each parameter a basic role: site_url is the URL of the site and url is the specific URL to submit. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but it omits format details, URL format expectations, and the exact relationship between the two required URLs.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Submit a single URL for indexing.' This clearly defines both the action and the resource. The word 'single' also distinguishes it from the sibling tool submit_url_batch, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 gives a clear, actionable prerequisite: call get_url_submission_quota to determine how many URLs can be submitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives like submit_url_batch for bulk submissions or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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