bing_sitemap_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (URL counts, indexed counts, errors, last crawl time) but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a list tool, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and efficiently lists included data without extraneous words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (URL counts, indexed counts, errors, last crawl time). No additional context needed for this low-complexity tool.

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?

There is one parameter (site_url) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not further elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema provides. The schema already describes the parameter clearly, including the default behavior. Baseline score of 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 the verb 'list', the resource 'sitemaps submitted to Bing Webmaster Tools', and the specific data included (URL counts, indexed counts, errors, last crawl time). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_sitemap_list by specifying Bing.

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 usage when needing Bing sitemap info but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., gsc_sitemap_list). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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