bing_blocked_urls

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: the empty_response label semantics and the warning that empty results are 'silence, not a measurement' that must not be reported as 'no problems found'. It also flags that untrusted fields must be treated as data, not instructions, which is meaningful prompt-injection guidance annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then routing exclusions, then interpretation caveats, in a tight sequence of sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value; none restates structured fields.

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 explains the return behavior via the empty_response label and interpretation rule, and it handles sibling disambiguation thoroughly. The remaining gap is the site_url format, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required site_url parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It implies scoping to 'one site' but never states the expected format (domain vs. full URL, scheme, trailing slash), leaving an agent to guess a value it must supply correctly.

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 (List) and resource (URL block requests Bing holds for one site), and explicitly enumerates the two subtypes covered: full removals and cache-only removals. It distinguishes itself from bing_page_preview_blocks and bing_deep_link_blocks by name, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('when the user asks which URLs are hidden from Bing or had their cached copy removed') and two explicit exclusions, each with the named alternative tool to call instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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