bing_query_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the site must be verified and the operation is 'Paid'. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The key prerequisite and cost signal are immediately visible.

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, single-parameter read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and cost. It could be improved by noting return format or date-range defaults, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'site' is only typed as a URI in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantic constraint: the site must be a verified Bing Webmaster site, which is not captured 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 ('Read') and resource ('Bing Webmaster query statistics') with clear scope ('for a verified site'). It differentiates from sibling tools like gsc_query by naming Bing, though it does not explicitly contrast with bing_crawl_issues.

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?

Implies usage context (Bing Webmaster, verified site, paid) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say when to choose this over gsc_query or bing_crawl_issues.

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