bing_queries

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, but the description adds real context beyond them: an auth prerequisite (a [bing] key configured in the site profile) and a freshness expectation (numbers update roughly weekly). Both materially affect whether an agent should call this and how to interpret stale results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what data is returned; the auth and freshness notes follow logically. 'Bing feeds Copilot' is the only line of marginal value, but it does justify the tool's existence.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, an agent still lacks the essentials to invoke this correctly: date format, the days-vs-start/end precedence, and what limit controls. The description covers prerequisites and freshness well but leaves the calling contract underspecified.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for five parameters, yet it only vaguely gestures at 'for a range' and 'by query'. It never explains site format, how days interacts with start/end, what limit bounds, or the date format expected.

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 the specific resource (Bing Webmaster Tools query-level clicks, impressions, average position) and the aggregation (site totals) over a range. The 'Bing' qualifier implicitly separates it from the Google-oriented search_queries/page_queries siblings, though it never says so 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?

'Needs a [bing] key in the site's profile' gives a concrete prerequisite, and 'Bing feeds Copilot' hints at why the data matters. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over search_queries or page_queries, and no exclusions or caveats about when the data is unusable.

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