URL index status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds the kinds of values returned, which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits behavior for unindexed URLs, errors, and any rate limits.

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 keeps it tight, and the enumerated fields are efficient. The trailing ellipsis is a minor structural weakness that makes the return list feel incomplete.

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?

Required parameters and safety semantics are adequately covered via schema and annotations. However, with no output schema, the description's partial field list ending in '…' leaves the full return shape and non-happy-path behavior under-specified.

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%, and the schema itself explains that siteUrl must exactly match the verified Bing Webmaster Tools site and suggests list_sites when unsure. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: index information for one URL, and lists several returned fields (HTTP status, discovery/last crawl dates, size, document links). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_url_traffic_info or get_inbound_links, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. 'For one URL' implies scope but does not tell the agent which sibling to choose for traffic, links, or keyword data. The list_sites hint lives in the schema, not the description, so it does not count here.

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