bing get reporting schema

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

The readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations already declare the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral caveat — that presence in this list does not mean the column has populated data — which prevents a false assumption about data availability. It says nothing about freshness, versioning, or the scope of "pinned".

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, the capability is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and for a zero-param read-only lookup this is largely sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the missing link to bing_get_report, which would tell an agent how to act on the schema it just read.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing the description could add. No syntax or format guidance is needed.

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 verb+resource: reading the pinned catalog of report types and their native columns, with references. It distinguishes itself from data-fetch siblings by making clear this is metadata (schema), not data, though it never names bing_get_report as the counterpart.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this before building a report request to learn valid columns. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to bing_get_report for actual data retrieval.

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