bing_crawl_issues

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 goes well beyond them: the bitmask semantics that let one URL fall into several categories, the http_4xx/http_404/http_403 subset trap, the absence of any noindex flag, and the empty_response-is-silence warning. It omits only pagination or result-size limits, a minor gap.

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-loaded with purpose, then the alternative and the return contract before the caveats. The long enumeration of issue categories and HTTP-code caveats is dense but each clause prevents a real reporting error, so it largely earns its space even if it runs long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return object keys, the category labels, and the untrusted-field handling. It also covers the empty-result edge case, which an agent could otherwise misreport as 'no problems found'.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'For one site' does convey single-site scoping, but it never states the expected site_url format (domain vs full URL, protocol, subdomain handling). Adequate, not complete.

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 ('List crawl issues Bing reports for one site') plus the exact shape of what comes back ('count per category and HTTP code'). It names the sibling it is not (bing_crawl_stats), so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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 trigger ('Use when the user asks which URLs Bing failed to crawl and why'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this for site-wide crawl totals') and the alternative to call instead (bing_crawl_stats). 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.