mcp-server-bing-webmaster

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have clear purposes but significant overlap exists, particularly in the 'get_' category where many tools retrieve similar types of data (e.g., get_crawl_stats, get_page_stats, get_query_stats, get_rank_and_traffic_stats all provide traffic/statistical data). While descriptions help differentiate them, an agent could easily misselect between closely related tools like get_query_stats and get_query_traffic_stats.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout. All tools use clear action verbs (add, get, remove, submit, update, enable_disable, fetch) followed by specific nouns, with consistent snake_case formatting. This predictability makes the tool set easy to navigate and understand.
Tool Count2/5
With 60 tools, this is an extremely large set that feels overwhelming for the Bing Webmaster Tools domain. While the domain is broad, many tools could likely be consolidated (e.g., multiple 'get_' tools for different statistics types). The count will make it difficult for agents to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of the Bing Webmaster Tools domain. It includes full CRUD operations for resources (add/get/remove), extensive data retrieval options, submission capabilities, configuration management, and administrative functions. No obvious gaps exist for core webmaster workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 60 of 60 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on February 10, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add URL normalization parameter,' which implies a mutation but doesn't clarify permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on URLs), rate limits, or what 'normalization' entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies site settings, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (mutating site settings with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details provided, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover purpose, usage, parameters, or behavior adequately, making it insufficient for an agent to understand or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters 'site_url' and 'parameter.' The description adds no meaning beyond the generic 'URL normalization parameter,' failing to explain what these parameters represent (e.g., site_url as a target site, parameter as a query key/value) or their expected formats. This leaves both parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add URL normalization parameter' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'add_query_parameter' without specifying what 'URL normalization' means or what resource is being modified. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'enable_disable_query_parameter' or 'remove_query_parameter', leaving the purpose unclear beyond a generic 'add' action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for site management), or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'enable_disable_query_parameter' or 'remove_query_parameter' for comparison. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It does not indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how it affects the system, or what the output entails, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two required parameters, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description lacks critical context about the tool's behavior, parameters, and usage, making it incomplete for effective agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'site_url' and 'url_pattern' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, their purposes, formats, or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a deep link block' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the action ('remove') and resource ('deep link block'), it lacks specificity about what a 'deep link block' is or what this operation entails, making it vague compared to more descriptive alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'remove_blocked_url' and 'remove_page_preview_block', the description fails to differentiate this tool's specific context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Add a page') without mentioning permissions required, whether this is a write operation, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is a critical gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to the basic understanding of the tool's intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage context. While an output schema exists (which might help with return values), the description doesn't compensate for the other gaps, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'your website' and 'link', which loosely relate to 'site_url' and 'connected_url', but it doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Add a page') and the resource type ('page that has a link to your website'), but it's vague about what exactly is being added. It doesn't specify whether this creates a new page in a CMS, adds a page to a list, or registers a page in a tracking system. Compared to siblings like 'add_site' or 'add_blocked_url', the purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity about the domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'add_site', 'add_page_preview_block', 'get_connected_pages', and 'submit_url', there's no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or distinctions. This leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context for this operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add'), suggesting mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or the response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded only in the sense that it's brief, but it doesn't prioritize key information, as it lacks depth. This brevity is a strength but comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or usage context. It fails to provide enough information for reliable tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the three parameters (site_url, country_code, region_code), such as their formats, examples, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Add') and target ('country/region targeting settings'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what these settings entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_country_region_settings' or 'get_country_region_settings' beyond the verb. This makes it somewhat vague but still conveys the basic intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing site, or contrast with related tools like 'update_crawl_settings' or 'add_site'. The description offers no context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get detailed statistics') without explaining what kind of statistics, format of return data, whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is still incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't provide enough context about when to use this versus similar tools, what the parameters mean, or behavioral characteristics. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for these other gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (site_url, query, page) have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic information about these parameters - it doesn't explain what format they should be in, what they represent, or provide examples. With three undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed statistics') and the target ('for a specific query and page combination'), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_page_query_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats', leaving some ambiguity about how it differs from those tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_query_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats'. It mentions the specific combination of query and page but doesn't explain why this tool exists separately from those other tools or what unique value it provides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'prevent rich snippets,' hinting at a functional outcome, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutating tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, not explaining what 'site_url,' 'block_url,' or 'block_type' represent, their formats, or how they interact. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Add a page preview block to prevent rich snippets,' which provides a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('page preview block'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'add_deep_link_block' or 'remove_page_preview_block,' leaving the specific role of this tool within the family ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'add_deep_link_block' and 'remove_page_preview_block,' the description lacks context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving statistics but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details like differentiation from siblings or parameter context, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description detail, but the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral context leaves gaps, making it just sufficient for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'site_url' parameter. It doesn't explain what the parameter represents, expected format, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving 'overall ranking and traffic statistics', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'ranking and traffic statistics', but doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'get_url_traffic_info' or 'get_query_traffic_stats', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to traffic and statistics (e.g., 'get_url_traffic_info', 'get_query_traffic_stats'), the description lacks context on appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action 'Remove' without explaining what 'remove' entails - whether it's permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to associated data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple removal operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required parameters, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context that would help an agent understand when and how to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'site_url' and 'block_url' represent, their format, or how they identify the specific page preview block to remove. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'page preview block', making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific about what action is performed, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_deep_link_block' or 'remove_blocked_url' which have similar removal patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when removal is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other removal tools like 'remove_blocked_url' or 'remove_deep_link_block' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('remove') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if the removal is permanent/reversible, what happens to affected URLs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does in practical terms, what the parameters mean, or the behavioral implications. For a tool that modifies configuration, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'URL normalization parameter' but doesn't explain what 'site_url' or 'parameter' represent, their formats, or examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool removes a URL normalization parameter, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what a 'URL normalization parameter' is or distinguish this tool from its sibling 'remove_query_parameter' (which appears to be the same tool based on the name) or other removal tools like 'remove_blocked_url' or 'remove_country_region_settings'. The purpose is understandable but vague about the specific domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be relevant (like 'enable_disable_query_parameter' or 'get_query_parameters' from the sibling list). There's no explicit or implied context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool blocks deep links, implying a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the block is reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies system settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could be more informative given the lack of other context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and likely performs a mutation (blocking), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or usage context, and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't address core operational aspects needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'specific URL patterns' but doesn't explain the four parameters (site_url, url_pattern, block_type, reason) or their relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Block') and resource ('deep links for specific URL patterns'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_blocked_url' or 'add_page_preview_block', which appear to have related blocking functions, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_blocked_url' or 'remove_deep_link_block'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a site must be configured first, or any exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'active' entails (e.g., time-based status). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and complexity implied by 'active' status, the description is minimal. It meets a basic threshold but lacks details on behavior and parameters that would aid an agent in correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'site_url' parameter. It doesn't explain what format the URL should be in, whether it's required for filtering, or its role in retrieving preview blocks, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of active page preview blocks', which clarifies the tool's basic function. However, it doesn't specify what 'active' means in this context or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_page_preview_block' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'get_deep_link_blocks', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'get_deep_link_blocks' and 'get_blocked_urls' that might retrieve similar data, the lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral context, making it only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'child URLs' but doesn't explain the three parameters (site_url, parent_url, limit) or their relationships. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what inputs are needed or how they interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get traffic information for child URLs' clearly states the action (get) and resource (traffic information for child URLs), but it's somewhat vague about what 'traffic information' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_url_traffic_info' or 'get_children_url_info'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get_url_traffic_info' and 'get_children_url_info', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get detailed information') without revealing traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two required parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specific feed' but doesn't explain the semantics of 'site_url' and 'feed_url' parameters, their format, or how they relate to each other. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving detailed information about a specific feed, which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource ('feed') and verb ('get detailed information'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feeds' or explain what 'detailed information' entails beyond what the output schema might provide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'get_feeds' or when to use it over other feed-related tools. The description is standalone with no comparative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical statistics but does not specify whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or the format of returned data. While it implies a safe read operation, critical behavioral details are missing for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage for parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, making it adequate only as a minimal starting point for a read operation with structured output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the four parameters (site_url, query, country, language) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'keyword' relates to 'query.' It does not explain what 'site_url' refers to, how 'country' and 'language' affect results, or their expected formats, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get historical statistics for a specific keyword,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'historical statistics,' but lacks specificity about what statistics are retrieved or how they differ from sibling tools like 'get_keyword_data' or 'get_query_stats.' This distinguishes it from unrelated tools but not from similar ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_keyword_data' and 'get_query_stats' available, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits. The output schema may help with return values, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters 'site_url' and 'query' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond implying 'query' is the input for keyword generation, but it doesn't explain what 'site_url' does or provide syntax/format details. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get keywords related to a specific query' clearly states the action (get) and resource (keywords), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_keyword_data' or 'get_keyword_stats'. It specifies 'related to a specific query' which adds some context but remains general.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_keyword_data' or 'get_keyword_stats'. The description implies usage for keyword discovery but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get history'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data format, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate—it lacks details on what 'history' entails, such as time range or event types, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get history'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is partially excused. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios and parameter details. It's borderline adequate but leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'site_url' implicitly but adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type. No details on URL format, validation, or how it relates to moves are provided. With one required parameter and zero coverage, the description fails to enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves 'history of site moves/migrations', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sites' or 'get_url_info', leaving the specific scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks precision about what distinguishes this historical data from other site-related queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_sites', 'get_url_info', and 'get_crawl_stats', the description fails to specify scenarios where site move history is needed over general site data or other metrics. This omission leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (suggested by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'site_url' implicitly ('for specific site URL'), leaving 'link' and 'page' undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'link' represents (e.g., a specific URL to filter by) or how pagination works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get inbound links for specific site URL' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('inbound links'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'inbound links' specifically means in this context (e.g., backlinks, internal links, or something else). It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_link_counts' or 'get_connected_pages', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_link_counts' and 'get_connected_pages' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or purpose, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] traffic information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data formats, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. Every part earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior and parameters. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for safe or effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'specific URLs' but doesn't explain the parameters 'site_url' and 'urls' or their relationships. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, though it hints at the scope.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get traffic information for specific URLs,' which clearly indicates a retrieval action ('Get') on a resource ('traffic information') with a scope ('for specific URLs'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_url_info' or 'get_children_url_traffic_info,' making it somewhat vague in context. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_url_info' and 'get_children_url_traffic_info,' there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the general purpose, lacking explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'submit' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens after submission (e.g., triggers a process, sends notifications), whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, and usage that would help an agent invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about what 'old_site_url', 'new_site_url', or 'move_type' mean, their formats, or constraints. With 3 parameters (2 required) completely undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Submit a site move/migration notification' clearly states the action (submit) and resource (site move/migration notification), but it's somewhat vague about what this actually does. It doesn't specify whether this triggers an actual migration, notifies a system, or requests approval. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_site_moves' (read vs write), it lacks the specificity of a 4-5 score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or related tools like 'get_site_moves' for checking existing moves. Without any context about when this operation is appropriate, the agent must infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a blocking action, implying a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the block is immediate or requires a crawl, or what happens if the URL is already blocked. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, achieving optimal conciseness for such a brief statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools like 'remove_blocked_url', the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage distinctions, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation, despite the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'URL or directory' but doesn't explain the three parameters: 'site_url', 'url', and 'block_type'. It fails to clarify their roles, such as whether 'url' is the specific path to block or how 'block_type' (defaulting to 'Directory') affects the operation, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Block') and the resource ('a URL or directory from being crawled'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'remove_blocked_url' or other blocking tools like 'add_deep_link_block', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_blocked_url' or other blocking tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing site, or clarify the relationship between 'site_url' and 'url' parameters, leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'delegate' implies a write operation with permission changes, the description doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (hinted by 'auth_token' parameter), notification behavior, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies access rights.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address key contextual elements like authentication needs, role types, or behavioral implications, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description doesn't compensate by explaining any parameters. It mentions 'site access' and 'user' generally, but provides no details about required inputs like 'site_url', 'user_email', 'role_type', or optional flags like 'is_explicit' and 'should_notify'. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delegate site access to another user' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('delegate') and resource ('site access'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_site' or 'get_site_roles', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_site' (for creating sites) and 'remove_site_role' (for removing roles), the lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Enable or disable' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what this operation actually does (does it toggle a setting? apply to all pages?), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools that handle related operations, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't provide enough context about the operation's behavior, parameter meanings, or differentiation from alternatives to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so all three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'URL query parameter' which hints at the 'parameter' field, but doesn't explain what 'site_url' represents, what format it expects, or what the 'enabled' boolean actually controls. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and the target resource ('a URL query parameter'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_query_parameter' or 'remove_query_parameter', which handle related but different operations on query parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'add_query_parameter' or 'remove_query_parameter' that also manage query parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral details for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear language. No extraneous words or redundant information are present, making it highly concise and well-structured for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. For a read-only tool with output schema support, it's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding when and how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher. The description doesn't explain what 'site_url' represents or its format, but the simplicity of a single required parameter mitigates the lack of detail, resulting in an adequate but minimal score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving 'content submission quota information', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'content submission quota information', but doesn't distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_url_submission_quota' or explain what 'content' versus 'url' submission means. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_url_submission_quota' or explain the difference between content and URL submission quotas. There's no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' settings without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which covers return values) and low complexity, the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should explain more about the crawl settings retrieved and usage scenarios to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal meaning by implying 'site_url' identifies the site. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of 'site_url' (e.g., must be a valid URL, domain-specific). With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get crawl settings for a site' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('crawl settings'), but it's vague about what crawl settings include (e.g., crawl frequency, depth, rules). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_crawl_settings' or 'get_crawl_stats', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving current configuration vs. historical data, or when to prefer 'get_crawl_stats' for performance metrics. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'May require special permissions,' which adds useful context about potential authentication needs. However, it lacks details on rate limits, return format, or other behavioral traits, making it only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a note. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the note). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter or return values, though the output schema mitigates some gaps. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'site_url' parameter beyond what the schema provides (just a string). No additional meaning, format requirements, or examples are given, failing to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get URL normalization parameters' which indicates it retrieves parameters for URL normalization. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'URL normalization parameters' specifically are and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_query_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats' which might have overlapping domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a note about special permissions, which provides some context, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar siblings like 'get_query_parameter' or 'get_query_stats', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks completeness in guiding usage and behavior, making it just viable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'site_url' undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's general purpose, failing to explain what 'site_url' should be (e.g., a domain, full URL) or how it affects quota retrieval, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information about') and the resource ('URL submission quota and usage'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content_submission_quota' or 'submit_url', which handle related but distinct operations, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid site URL, or compare it to siblings like 'get_content_submission_quota' for content quotas or 'submit_url' for actual submissions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the URL isn't in the blocked list. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an agent's understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral implications, or reference the output schema. While an output schema exists, the description should still provide more context to guide effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what 'site_url' and 'url' represent, their formats, or their relationship. The description mentions 'URL' but doesn't clarify which parameter corresponds to it or if both are needed for different contexts. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a URL from the blocked list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_blocked_url' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'blocked list' refers to in context, leaving some ambiguity about the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the URL must already be blocked), conditions for use, or related tools like 'get_blocked_urls' for checking existing blocked URLs first. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a removal action, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, and usage guidance, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters 'site_url' and 'country_code' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what these parameters represent, their formats, or constraints, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('country/region targeting settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_country_region_settings' by indicating the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other removal tools like 'remove_blocked_url'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_country_region_settings' for checking settings before removal or 'add_country_region_settings' for reversal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on indexing), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral context (e.g., irreversible deletion), and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'site_url' and 'sitemap_url' represent, their formats, or how they relate (e.g., sitemap must belong to the site). This leaves both parameters undocumented beyond their names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a sitemap from Bing'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'submit_sitemap' by focusing on removal rather than submission, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other removal tools like 'remove_blocked_url'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for removing sitemaps, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., sitemap must exist), context (e.g., after submission errors), or comparison to related tools like 'remove_feed' or 'submit_sitemap' for correction scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'submit' (implying a write operation) and 'to Bing' (indicating external service interaction), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, error handling, or what 'submit' entails (e.g., indexing request). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint ('without crawling'). It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, with every word contributing to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation to an external service with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral details (e.g., side effects, errors), parameter semantics, and output expectations (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at return values). This leaves significant gaps for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It mentions 'page content' and 'Bing', loosely relating to 'content' and possibly 'url'/'site_url', but provides no explanation of parameter purposes, relationships (e.g., how 'site_url' differs from 'url'), or usage (e.g., format of 'content_type'). With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, this minimal guidance is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('submit page content') and target ('to Bing'), with the specific constraint 'without crawling' that distinguishes it from crawling-based submission tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_url' or 'submit_url_batch', which might also involve content submission but potentially with crawling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'directly to Bing without crawling', implying this tool is for direct submission bypassing crawling. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), or comparisons to alternatives like 'submit_url' or 'submit_sitemap', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is 'submit for indexing' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether the submission is synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens if the URL is already indexed. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two required parameters, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address key behavioral aspects like what 'indexing' entails, success/failure conditions, or how this differs from similar tools in the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'site_url' versus 'url' parameters represent, their relationship, format requirements, or examples. With two required parameters completely undocumented, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('submit') and resource ('a single URL for indexing'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_url_batch' by specifying 'single URL', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other submission tools like 'submit_content' or 'submit_sitemap'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'submit_url_batch' for multiple URLs, 'fetch_url' for retrieval, or 'submit_content' for other submission types, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Submit for indexing' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is asynchronous, what happens on success/failure, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address when to use batch versus individual submission, parameter meanings, or behavioral aspects like rate limits or asynchronous processing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'site_url' and 'urls' represent, their format requirements, or their relationship. The description mentions 'multiple URLs' which hints at the 'urls' array parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'site_url' or provide any parameter semantics beyond what's obvious from the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('submit') and resource ('multiple URLs for indexing'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_url' (singular) or 'submit_content', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this batch version versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_url' (for single URLs) or 'submit_content'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for batch submission versus individual submissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at an 'attempt' (implying possible failure) but lacks details on success/failure conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what verification entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves permissions or external checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a verification tool that may involve complex outcomes, it lacks context on what verification means or how results are interpreted, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'site_url' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool name, such as format requirements (e.g., full URL vs. domain) or examples. This leaves the parameter meaning vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('verify ownership') and target resource ('site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_site' or 'get_sites', which also deal with sites but have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., site must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_site' for initial setup, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'fetch/crawl' implies a read operation that might trigger external activity, the description doesn't clarify whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, whether it requires specific permissions, what rate limits apply, or what happens if the URL is already crawled. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with Bing's crawling system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and poor parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about when to use it, parameter meanings, and behavioral characteristics that would be needed for confident tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about what the two required parameters ('site_url' and 'url') mean or how they differ. The description mentions 'a specific URL' but doesn't explain why both parameters are needed or their relationship, leaving the agent to guess about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request Bing to fetch/crawl') and resource ('a specific URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'submit_url' or 'get_fetched_url_details', which reduces its score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_url' or 'get_fetched_url_details'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or what distinguishes this fetch/crawl operation from other URL-related operations in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get information'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter details, leaving gaps in overall completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'child URLs under a parent URL', which hints at the 'parent_url' parameter, but doesn't explain 'site_url' or provide any details on parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about child URLs under a parent URL', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_children_url_traffic_info' or 'get_url_info', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_children_url_traffic_info', 'get_url_info', 'fetch_url'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds some context about potential permission needs, but lacks details on output format, error handling, rate limits, or side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the permission note is vague and could be more specific. It avoids redundancy, though it lacks structural elements like examples or formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and a permission hint, but misses details on behavior, parameter meaning, and sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't explain the 'site_url' parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though with only one parameter, the baseline is higher. No value is added beyond the schema's basic structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('country/region targeting settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_country_region_settings' or 'remove_country_region_settings' beyond the verb, missing explicit scope distinctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions permission requirements but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'issues and errors' entail (e.g., types, severity). This leaves gaps for a tool that likely returns diagnostic data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context, making it just sufficient for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'site_url' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'site_url' should be (e.g., format, domain), leaving the parameter semantics unclear and failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get crawl issues and errors for a site' clearly states the action (get) and resource (crawl issues/errors for a site), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_crawl_settings' or 'get_crawl_stats' that also involve crawl-related data, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_crawl_stats' or 'get_fetched_urls' that might overlap in context, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieve') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple parameter set, the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context on behavior and parameters to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'for a specific site' but doesn't clarify what 'site_url' should be (e.g., format, domain requirements, or examples). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('crawl statistics for a specific site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_crawl_settings' or 'get_crawl_issues', which also retrieve crawl-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_crawl_settings' or 'get_crawl_issues', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' feeds, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or operational limits, leaving room for improvement in completeness for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'site_url' undocumented. The description adds minimal context by implying 'site_url' is needed to specify the site, but doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., full URL, domain), validation rules, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all RSS/Atom feeds for a site'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_feed_details' (which presumably gets details of a specific feed) by focusing on retrieving all feeds for a site. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other feed-related tools beyond naming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_feed_details' or 'remove_feed'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond what the output schema might cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context, though the output schema mitigates some gaps for return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a fetched URL' but doesn't explain the two required parameters ('site_url' and 'url'), their relationship, or what they represent (e.g., base site vs. specific URL). This leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a fetched URL', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_fetched_urls' (plural) by focusing on details for a specific URL, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_url_info' or 'get_fetched_urls'. The description implies it's for detailed info on a fetched URL, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the 'detailed data' takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only 2 parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a basic read operation. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter context. The description works adequately but leaves the agent to make assumptions about parameter formats and tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'keyword/query' which maps to the 'query' parameter, but provides no information about the 'site_url' parameter or what format either should take. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed data') and resource ('for a specific keyword/query'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keyword_stats' or 'get_query_stats', but the focus on 'detailed data' provides some distinction. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand this retrieves information rather than modifies it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_keyword_stats', 'get_query_stats', or 'get_related_keywords'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a real-time or cached data source. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and is perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are in parameter semantics and behavioral context. For a 2-parameter read operation with output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered about parameter usage and operational constraints that aren't covered by structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'for a specific page' which hints at the 'page' parameter, but provides no clarification about what 'site_url' represents or the expected format/scope of either parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get query statistics') and the target resource ('for a specific page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_query_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats', which likely have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools dealing with query statistics (e.g., 'get_query_stats', 'get_query_page_stats', 'get_query_page_detail_stats'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get traffic statistics' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'top pages' means (ranking criteria, time period, or limit), whether authentication is required, or how results are structured. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'traffic statistics', 'for top pages') contributes essential information, making it efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description's brevity is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about what 'top pages' means and the tool's behavioral characteristics to be truly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'site_url', the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what format the site_url should take, whether it needs to be a full URL or domain, or any validation requirements. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get traffic statistics') and resource ('for top pages'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_url_traffic_info' or 'get_query_traffic_stats', which appear to offer similar traffic-related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple traffic-related sibling tools (get_url_traffic_info, get_query_traffic_stats, get_rank_and_traffic_stats), the agent receives no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed traffic statistics' but doesn't specify what 'detailed' entails, such as metrics included, time ranges, or data formats. It also omits critical behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is essential for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of traffic statistics tools, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use, such as behavioral constraints or parameter details, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific query' but doesn't clarify the parameters 'site_url' and 'query' beyond their names. No details are provided on expected formats (e.g., URL structure, query syntax), leaving semantics unclear and failing to address the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed traffic statistics for a specific query'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_query_stats' or 'get_query_traffic_stats', which appear to handle related query statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for query and traffic statistics (e.g., 'get_query_stats', 'get_query_traffic_stats', 'get_query_page_detail_stats'), the description lacks context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed traffic statistics' but doesn't specify what 'detailed' entails, the format of the output, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, which helps. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and one parameter, the description is too sparse—it doesn't clarify parameter usage or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the 'site_url' parameter, such as its format, examples, or how it relates to 'top queries'. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed traffic statistics for top queries'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_query_traffic_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats', which appear similar, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_query_traffic_stats' or 'get_page_query_stats'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'traffic statistics' and 'over time,' but doesn't specify what data is returned, how it's formatted, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get traffic statistics for queries over time.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context, leaving room for improvement in guiding effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'site_url', 'query', and 'period' have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any semantic details about these parameters, such as what 'site_url' should include, how 'query' is interpreted, or what values 'period' accepts (e.g., '30d' as default). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get traffic statistics for queries over time.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('traffic statistics'), and scope ('for queries over time'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_query_stats' or 'get_query_page_stats', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'get_query_stats' and 'get_query_page_stats' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or application. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed index information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., crawl status, indexing dates, canonicalization). It also omits critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, 0% parameter schema coverage, and multiple similar siblings, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral context, parameter guidance, and usage distinctions. It meets a minimal baseline by stating the purpose but falls short of providing a comprehensive understanding for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('site_url' and 'url') that are undocumented. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'site_url' versus 'url' represent, their expected formats, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed index information') and resource ('for a specific URL'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_url_traffic_info' by focusing on 'index information' rather than traffic data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fetch_url' or 'get_fetched_url_details', which might have overlapping functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'fetch_url', 'get_fetched_url_details', and 'get_url_traffic_info', there's no indication of which tool is appropriate for different scenarios (e.g., real-time fetching vs. historical index data). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects site indexing, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required parameters. The description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context about behavior, parameters, and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'a feed' but doesn't explain what site_url and feed_url parameters represent, their format, or their relationship. For a tool with 2 required parameters, this is inadequate compensation for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a feed from Bing Webmaster Tools'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'remove_' siblings like remove_blocked_url or remove_site, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like get_feeds or get_feed_details exist, the description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when this operation is appropriate versus other removal operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens to associated data. It lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a simple removal operation. However, as a destructive mutation tool with no behavioral disclosure, it should provide more context about effects and prerequisites to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a site' but doesn't clarify what 'site_url' should contain (e.g., format, domain requirements). With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond implying the parameter identifies the site.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a site from Bing Webmaster Tools'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_sitemap' or 'remove_site_role', which also remove resources from the same platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the site must exist in Bing Webmaster Tools), exclusions, or when to choose other removal tools like 'remove_sitemap' or 'remove_site_role'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies access permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste space on redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gap is the lack of behavioral context for a destructive operation. However, for a tool with 2 simple parameters and output schema support, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important usage and error-handling details unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information—it doesn't explain what format 'site_url' should be in, whether 'user_email' must be validated, or what happens if parameters are invalid. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target ('a user's access to a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_site' or 'remove_blocked_url', which also perform removal operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the user must already have access), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_site_roles' or 'get_site_roles' from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks critical details for safe and effective use, such as behavioral traits or parameter guidance, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'crawl settings' but doesn't explain what parameters like 'site_url' or 'crawl_rate' mean, their formats, or valid values (e.g., what 'Normal' entails). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('crawl settings for a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_crawl_settings' (read vs. write) and 'add_site' (create vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing site), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'add_site' or 'get_crawl_settings', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Add a new site' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this triggers verification processes, rate limits, or what happens if the site already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, low parameter coverage, and multiple siblings, it lacks context on behavior, usage, and parameters. The description is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies a 'site_url' parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's basic type. No details on URL format, validation rules, or examples are provided, offering minimal semantic value over the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a new site to Bing Webmaster Tools'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_site_move' or 'verify_site', which also involve site-related operations, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like site verification or how it differs from 'submit_sitemap' or 'submit_site_move', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but fails to describe key traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it returns paginated results, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks context on permissions, behavior, and usage scenarios. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough operational context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description mentions 'for a site', which implies the 'site_url' parameter is required, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints for 'site_url', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of blocked URLs for a site', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_blocked_url' and 'remove_blocked_url' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a read-only operation, which would make it fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_fetched_urls' or 'get_url_info', nor does it mention prerequisites such as site verification or authentication requirements. It lacks explicit context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get list') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for full contextual understanding, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies the 'site_url' parameter is needed but doesn't explain its format or constraints. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of connected pages that link to your site'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_url_links' or 'get_link_counts' by focusing on pages linking to the user's site, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_url_links' or 'get_link_counts', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes a 'blocked deep link'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and sibling differentiation. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't address when or how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'site_url' parameter at all, leaving its purpose and format undocumented. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, so it scores lower. The schema alone provides the parameter name and type, but no semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get list of blocked deep links' clearly states the action (get) and resource (blocked deep links). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_blocked_urls' (general URLs) and 'remove_deep_link_block' (removal action), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_blocked_urls' or 'get_active_page_preview_blocks'. The description implies retrieval of deep link blocks but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get list'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'fetched' means in context. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, low parameter coverage, and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on behavior and usage. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'site_url'. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate, but with only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher. It implies filtering by site, but doesn't clarify semantics like format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get list') and resource ('URLs that have been fetched'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fetched_url_details' or 'get_url_info', which might have overlapping scopes, so it's not fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_fetched_url_details' and 'get_url_info', there's no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a real-time or cached query. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it's adequate for a basic read operation but lacks context on usage and behavior, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'for a site', which aligns with the 'site_url' parameter, but adds no details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully clarify semantics, meeting the baseline for minimal coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('inbound link counts for a site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_url_links' or 'get_url_info', which might also relate to link data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_url_links' or 'get_url_info', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it should provide more context about behavior and usage. The description is adequate but leaves clear gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'site' which relates to the 'site_url' parameter, providing some context about what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify the expected format of the site_url (e.g., full URL, domain name) or any validation rules, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get list') and resource ('users with access to the site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sites' or 'get_url_info', which could provide related but different information about sites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_sites' (listing sites) and 'get_url_info' (getting URL details), there's no indication of when this specific tool for site roles is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('submit') but doesn't explain what submission entails—e.g., whether it's a one-time action, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns confirmation. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral details and parameter guidance leaves gaps in understanding how and when to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the description adds no value beyond the schema's structural information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('submit') and resource ('a sitemap to Bing'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_sitemap' or 'submit_url' by specifying the sitemap submission context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_url', 'submit_content', or 'remove_sitemap'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or specific scenarios for sitemap submission, leaving usage decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention output format or behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the description could be more informative about usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('all sites in the user's Bing Webmaster Tools account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_site_roles' or 'get_site_moves', which also retrieve site-related information but with different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve specific site data (e.g., 'get_site_roles', 'get_site_moves', 'get_crawl_stats'), there's no indication whether this is a general overview tool or how it relates to more specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-bing-webmaster MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/isiahw1/mcp-server-bing-webmaster/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/isiahw1/mcp-server-bing-webmaster)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-bing-webmaster MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/isiahw1/mcp-server-bing-webmaster/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/isiahw1/mcp-server-bing-webmaster)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/isiahw1/mcp-server-bing-webmaster'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server