submit_content

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.