bing_shopping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the credit cost, mutual exclusivity constraint, and return structure (JSON snippet). It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but as a read tool, this is acceptable.

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 single sentence plus a note on credits and mutual exclusivity, plus a return snippet. It is fairly concise, though the return snippet could be more structured. No fluff.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description provides a return structure example. It covers credit usage and mutual exclusivity. It omits rate limits and error handling, but for a search tool, this is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented there. The description adds minor value: notes mutual exclusivity (not in schema) and efirst offset behavior. Most parameter meaning is already in schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves shopping results from Bing', specifying the resource and action. It lists features like market targeting, pagination, and filters, distinguishing it from sibling shopping tools (e.g., google_shopping, walmart_search).

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 mentions mutual exclusivity of mkt/cc, pagination via efirst, and filters, providing clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like google_shopping or ebay_search.

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