bing get write schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context that returned fields are 'pinned native fields' scoped per entity and that polymorphic objects carry a REST Type value, though it omits how type variance is surfaced.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, but the middle and final sentences are telegraphic to the point of ambiguity ('read each polymorphic object's documentation', 'Account eligibility is separate'), leaving the reader to guess at the intended workflow.

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 a rich enum schema, full annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs orientation, and it provides some. However, the distinction between native fields and REST Type, and the 'separate' eligibility concern, are asserted without enough explanation for an agent to act confidently.

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 100% with an enum list and a per-parameter description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes little parameter-level detail beyond reaffirming that the entity determines which native fields are returned.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reading pinned native fields of a Microsoft Advertising entity. It implicitly contrasts with schema/reporting siblings by emphasizing 'native fields' and 'polymorphic' object documentation, but it never names an alternative tool.

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. 'Read each polymorphic object's documentation for its REST Type value' hints that this schema lookup precedes type-specific work, and 'Account eligibility is separate' hints at a boundary, but neither tells the agent when to pick this over bing_get_reporting_schema or how eligibility gets resolved.

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