url_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a read-only informational lookup by saying 'What Bing knows about one URL' and lists the returned data categories. However, it does not mention caveats such as the data being last-known rather than live, authentication requirements, or behavior for URLs outside the registered site.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately lists the key output categories. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information with no wasted words.

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 simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent can expect in the result: discovery date, last crawl date, HTTP status, and document details. It does not cover error scenarios, but the schema handles the required and optional parameters sufficiently.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that the URL belongs to the site, which is already stated in the schema. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: retrieving Bing's stored information about a single URL, including discovery date, last crawl date, HTTP status, and document details. It identifies a specific resource and scope, though it uses a noun phrase rather than a strong imperative verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve'.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as query_stats, page_stats, or crawl_stats. It merely implies per-URL scope through the phrase 'one URL of the site,' but does not state when alternatives are more appropriate.

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