Queries for a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, aggregation behavior, or rate limits beyond what the schema carries.

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 zero waste; the resource and the metric payload come first and nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the return metrics, and the schema plus annotations cover parameters and safety for this 8-param read tool. It stops short of covering pagination/aggregation trade-offs and the reverse-direction sibling, so it is solid but not fully complete.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline, which is the expected floor when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (queries) and scope (queries bringing Bing traffic to a given URL), plus the metrics returned. The direction is implicitly contrasted with the sibling get_pages_for_query, but the description never names it, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you have a URL and want its queries. There is no explicit when-to-use note, no exclusions, and no routing to the reverse-direction sibling get_pages_for_query.

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