bing_site_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'trigger verification' with no details on side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens upon success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Bing: trigger verification') and contains zero unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It states the action and a prerequisite but does not mention the return value, error scenarios, or any post-condition. There are clear gaps, such as what a successful verification looks like.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'site_url' has a description). The description adds the prerequisite of having placed a verification token, offering some context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 tool's purpose: 'trigger verification for a site'. The verb 'trigger verification' and resource 'a site' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like bing_site_add (which adds a site) and bing_sites_get (which retrieves sites).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('after placing the verification token'), which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. More guidance would help differentiate from sibling tools.

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