crawl_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose what the tool returns—specific crawl counts, HTTP status buckets, robots.txt blocks, and errors—so an agent understands the general read-only nature. However, it omits behavioral details like the time range covered, aggregation/granularity, or how 'over time' is represented in the response.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific metric categories without filler or redundant wording. Every listed item adds useful information about the tool's scope.

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?

The metric list provides a reasonable overview and the schema is simple with one optional parameter, so basic invocation is possible. Yet the absence of an output schema and any mention of default time period, date-range handling, or response shape leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret 'over time'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, siteUrl, is already fully described in the schema with a clear default and example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'Bingbot crawl activity over time' and enumerates the major metric categories (pages crawled, in-index counts, HTTP buckets, robots.txt blocks, crawl errors). It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic stats tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as crawl_issues.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the content: an agent can infer to use this when it needs Bingbot crawl activity metrics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the inclusion of 'crawl errors' creates potential overlap with the sibling tool crawl_issues without any differentiation.

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