Bing: volumi di ricerca keyword

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context that the data is historical and fills a gap Search Console does not cover, but it discloses nothing about return shape, granularity, or rate limits. Adequate but thin beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences that lead with the core purpose and then the market/default guidance. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 read-only lookup with three simple params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, and market scoping adequately. The main gap is not routing the agent among the similarly named bing_* siblings.

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 67% – country and language already carry inline descriptions with their defaults. The description reinforces the default-market behavior and the override path, adding modest value, but contributes nothing for the undocumented keyword parameter beyond its obvious meaning.

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?

States a specific resource and data type: historical search volumes for a keyword on Bing. This is clearly a keyword-level volume lookup, which is reasonably distinct from the sibling bing_query_stats and bing_page_stats, though it never names them explicitly to remove ambiguity.

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?

Gives contextual guidance ('data that Search Console doesn't provide') and parameter defaults (Italy/Italian, override for other markets), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never states when to use this versus bing_query_stats or another sibling, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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