bing_business_profile

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive semantics, and the description adds genuinely new context: the meaning of matched:false and its implication that Bing Places was never claimed, plus a concrete cost of 3 credits. It doesn't mention failure modes such as invalid location strings or quota exhaustion, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and returned data, then usage, then the edge-case semantics and cost. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description still covers cost and the not-found case. The remaining gap is disambiguation from adjacent tools such as bing_local and business_profile, which the agent must resolve on its own.

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% with only two required params, and both are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for business_name or location beyond what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetching a business's Bing Maps listing — and names the returned fields (NAP, rating, coordinates), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like bing_local or business_profile, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Use when auditing Bing Places or checking NAP consistency on Bing" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of naming an alternative for the same job (e.g., business_profile or apple_business_profile for other platforms), so routing between siblings still requires inference.

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