submit_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add useful behavior: the submission limit, the response includes remaining daily/monthly quota, and the ownership constraint. It doesn't cover errors, idempotency, or authentication, so it's adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action and limit, the second adds the quota response and the ownership constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the main caller-facing facts are present: what it submits, the 1-500 limit, the site requirement, the optional siteUrl/default, and the quota in the response. It could add error behavior or explicit alternative routing, but it is largely complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 500-URL ceiling and domain ownership, but it doesn't add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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?

Description names a specific action ('Push up to 500 URLs of the site into Bing's crawl queue') and identifies the underlying operation as SubmitUrlBatch, which clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like submit_sitemap and indexnow.

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 context is clear: use this tool to submit a batch of up to 500 site URLs for crawling. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over the closely related sibling tools (submit_sitemap, indexnow) or state exclusions.

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