bing_related_keywords

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states 'get related keywords'. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, or that it searches for related terms.

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 very short with no fluff, but it is under-specified and does not provide enough information to earn its place. It achieves conciseness at the cost of completeness.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'related keywords' means, how date ranges work, or what the response contains.

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?

The schema has 5 required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the format, constraints, or how parameters like start_date and end_date should be provided.

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 tool gets related keywords for a query, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as bing_keyword_get, which may also retrieve keyword 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bing_keyword_get. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

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