Submit to Bing

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing that the response includes the remaining daily URL quota, signaling a quota-limited operation. It stops short of saying what happens when the quota is exhausted or whether a rejected URL errors the whole batch.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resources, ending with the return value. Every clause carries information; there is nothing to trim.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does well to name the return payload (remaining quota) and the accepted inputs. Missing pieces are the failure modes an agent needs before calling: quota-exceeded behavior, whether URLs must belong to siteUrl, and partial-failure semantics for the 500-item batch.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description has to compensate, and it does so meaningfully: 'a sitemap and/or a batch of URLs' conveys that sitemapUrl and urls are each optional and can be supplied together, which the schema alone does not make explicit. It does not restate the 500-URL cap or the URI format, but those are already in the schema.

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 (submits) plus the resources (a sitemap and/or a batch of URLs) and the target system (Bing Webmaster Tools). An agent can distinguish it from bing_list_sites and bing_report, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with the generic siblings submit_sitemap and indexnow_submit, which overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over submit_sitemap or indexnow_submit, nor whether a Bing account verification is a prerequisite. The only routing hint ('exactly as listed by bing_list_sites') lives in the schema for siteUrl, not in the description.

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