Bing Webmaster: performance per pagina

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about which site is used by default, how the aggregate flag affects the response, or pagination/limit behavior.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is tight, though the second sentence is purely schema-related rather than the most decision-relevant fact.

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 six-parameter tool with date filtering, an aggregation toggle, containment filtering and a default-site fallback, plus no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the identity of the result key but leaves the date-range and aggregate semantics entirely to the schema.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes slightly beyond it by clarifying that the `key` field holds the URL — a field that does not even appear in the input schema properties, so this is genuinely additive information.

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?

Names the specific resource (page-level performance on Bing) and the metrics returned (impressions, clicks, average position). The word 'per pagina' implicitly separates it from bing_query_stats and bing_keyword_stats, but it never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools bing_query_stats or bing_keyword_stats. An agent must guess whether to pick this or the query/keyword variants from the tool name alone.

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