Bing Search MCP Server

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 mentions the API source ('Bing Image Search API') but fails to disclose critical traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response format. For a search tool with external dependencies, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are bulleted clearly without redundancy, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more context on authentication, rate limits, and result structure to be fully helpful.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' is an 'Image search query (required)', 'count' is the 'Number of results (1-50, default 10)', and 'market' is a 'Market code like en-US, en-GB, etc.', providing context not present in the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't fully detail constraints like the exact format for 'market' or error handling.

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 purpose: 'Searches for images using Bing Image Search API for visual content.' It specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('images'), and method ('Bing Image Search API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bing_news_search and bing_web_search by focusing on images. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bing_news_search or bing_web_search. It lacks context about scenarios where image search is preferred over web or news search, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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