bing_crawl_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions what data is returned (crawl frequency, error types, problem list) but does not disclose behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and specific details. Zero wasted words, efficiently communicates core functionality.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key output for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. However, it lacks details on return format or error conditions. Given the absence of output schema, a bit more on expected results would improve completeness.

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 clear parameter descriptions (site_url, show_issues, max_issues). The tool description adds context about what the parameters control (e.g., 'specific crawl issues') but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'crawl statistics and crawl issues' from Bing Webmaster Tools, listing specific metrics (crawl frequency, error counts by type, crawl problems). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like bing_keyword_research or bing_sitemap_list, which focus on other data.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving crawl health data but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings. No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to infer from the function name and resource.

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