Bing Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value with the credit cost (1 credit per call) and the shape of the response payload. It omits any mention of rate limits, result caps, or whether cached/proxied results are returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences: identity and return shape first, cost second. No filler, no restatement of the schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With nine parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields and the per-call cost. It is not fully complete because it never tells the agent how this engine relates to the many sibling search tools in the same server.

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 100% and all nine parameters carry their own documentation, including the cc/mkt mutual exclusion and the pagination defaults, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome in this configuration.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Query Bing Search via API') and enumerates the returned fields (title, link, snippet, position), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. The Bing name implicitly separates it from the google_search/brave_search/duckduckgo_search siblings, but it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when Bing is preferable to google_search, brave_search, or google_search_light, all of which appear as siblings. The only usage-adjacent sentence is a cost note, which is not a selection criterion.

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