Pages for a query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that data comes from Bing (external data source) and that rows carry clicks and impressions, but says nothing about whether rows are aggregated by default, how the date window behaves when omitted, or the paging cap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope (URLs for a query) leads. It is phrased as a noun clause rather than an imperative, which is slightly less directive but costs nothing in length.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and an aggregate flag that changes row granularity, the description leaves the return shape underspecified – it implies clicks and impressions but a page-level report likely also returns ctr and position, and weekly vs. period-summed rows are not mentioned. Bugs and defaults are otherwise covered by the schema and annotations.

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%, including defaults for limit, sortBy and aggregate and the exact-match requirement for query, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only references clicks and impressions, which are outputs rather than parameters, and adds no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

The description names the resource (URLs of the site appearing in Bing for a query) and the metrics returned (clicks and impressions), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling get_queries_for_page or with get_page_stats, so differentiation must be inferred from the title.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings, no mention that get_queries_for_page answers the inverse question, and no prerequisites such as needing a verified site URL. The only guidance about site identification lives in the schema, not the description.

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