Bing Webmaster: performance per query

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context by noting that results are limited to Bing's available history and pointing to the dataAvailable field in the response. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or default behavior exhaustively.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the metrics, the entity, and the historical scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned metrics and references dataAvailable in the response. It is nearly complete for calling the tool, though it omits any mention of when to prefer it over 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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (dates, siteUrl, contains, aggregate, limit). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which meets the baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 specific metrics (impressions, clicks, average position) and the resource (Bing search queries), with scope 'available history'. It implicitly distinguishes query-level data from sibling page/keyword tools via 'per query di ricerca', though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as bing_page_stats or bing_keyword_stats. The agent must infer that this tool is for query-level performance and not for keyword volume or page-level stats.

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